Audio amplifier design trivial?

[John Atkinson]

(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
>...
> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
> interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Robert Morein]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> >...
> > Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
> > design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
> > audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
> > interesting and challenging concepts.
>
> I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
> that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
> where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
> voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
> and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
> contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
> its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
> hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
> over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
>
> Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
> amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
> missing something :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

I don't think it's trivial at all.
It does, however, tend to be canonical, which means the devil is in the
details, rather than a new overarching concept which probably does not
exist.

It might be interesting to enumerate the design concepts for solid state
amplifiers which have occurred. I would guess the number to be less than
twenty, in two groups:
1. Device physics
2. Circuit topology

From the examples I've seen, written about primarily in Stereophile --
though the Acoustat was covered in "Audio", it would seem that the result is
limited more by the design budget than anything else. The more components,
as in active constant current sources, higher quality parts, stiffer
supplies, etc., one can throw at it, the better the result. The end game
example of this is that Australian amp (name, please?) that has far lower
levels of distortion than anything else.

That amplifier is an important example, because it tends to negate the worth
of the "boutique designs" that emphasize some particular parameter at the
expense of others. That is another area that I've never found real happiness
with, in comparison to amplifiers engineered for general goodness.

Oddly, although amplifier design has become mature, it does not appear to me
that specification and testing has. The scientist in me says it all has to
reduce to numbers, yet it does not, which means that the numbers are
obtained by test procedures that fail to characterize amplifier behavior.

Someone ought to work on this.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om

> (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> >...

>> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
>> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
>> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
>> interesting and challenging concepts.

> I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
> that audio design is "trivial."

One of the better online discussions of audio power amp design is posted at
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/dipa/dipa.htm . Not trivial, but also
no longer any kind of big secret for people who do their homework.

>There are not many other design fields
> where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as
> a voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
> and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
> contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
> its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
> hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
> over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

However, for $5 or $10 you can buy one-up, a chip that delivers very usable
amounts of power with very little or no audible distortion and just a few
added parts. However, turning this chip into a competitive product is still
a goodly amount of work.

> Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
> amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
> missing something :-)

Any project that involves designing and/or building and selling a
competitive product is challenging. Even the experts fail at it, every once
in a while.

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
John Atkinson > wrote:
(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
>...
>> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
>> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
>> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
>> interesting and challenging concepts.
>
>I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
>that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
>where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
>voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
>and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise

Non-trivial!

>
>Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
>amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
>missing something :-)
>

Indeed, so.


Joe

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
Robert Morein > wrote:
>
>supplies, etc., one can throw at it, the better the result. The end game
>example of this is that Australian amp (name, please?) that has far lower
>levels of distortion than anything else.

Lower levels of distortion is not
the end game.
Stability into infinitely varying loads,
is.

>Oddly, although amplifier design has become mature, it does not appear to me
>that specification and testing has. The scientist in me says it all has to
>reduce to numbers, yet it does not, which means that the numbers are
>obtained by test procedures that fail to characterize amplifier behavior.
>
>Someone ought to work on this.
>

Audio amplifier design is fascinating, and it's
what drew me to rao at first. Early discussions on
Class A vs A/AB design, and 300B tube designs
were a great education for me.

Of course, then, those with knowledge left, leaving
the wreckage you see.

It's great to see interest in improving audio
design.


Joe

[Audio Guy]

In article >,
(John Atkinson) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> >...
>> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
>> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
>> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
>> interesting and challenging concepts.
>
> I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
> that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
> where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
> voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
> and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
> contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
> its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
> hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
> over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
>
> Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
> amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
> missing something :-)

Sure, take my words out of context.

You left out the previous part that qualifies them:

"Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
telecom."

[Arny Krueger]

"Joe Duffy" > wrote in message


> Of course, then, those with knowledge left, leaving
> the wreckage you see.

Not everybody with knowledge left.

> It's great to see interest in improving audio
> design.

The most significant gains are needed elsewhere. Amp technology isn't
trivial, but it is pretty well cut-and-dried. There's not much left to do
but to make them smaller/cheaper/lighter/more efficient.

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>The most significant gains are needed elsewhere. Amp technology isn't


I agree that speakers yield the most improvement,
however amplifiers are more interesting.


Joe

[Robert Morein]

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.

If science is to be believed, there can be no competitor to this company's
product.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
>
> If science is to be believed, there can be no competitor to this
> company's product.

If science is to believed, Halcro levels of technical perfection are an
interesting technical exercise and little else.

[jeffc]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oddly, although amplifier design has become mature, it does not appear to
me
> that specification and testing has. The scientist in me says it all has to
> reduce to numbers, yet it does not...

Actually it does, but we've simply failed to create devices that accurately
measure the attributes we (audiophiles) are interested in.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
> >
> > If science is to be believed, there can be no competitor to this
> > company's product.
>
> If science is to believed, Halcro levels of technical perfection are an
> interesting technical exercise and little else.
>
I distinguish between soft science, which encompasses psychology,
perception, and certain aspects of biology, and hard science, such as
physics and molecular biology.

Because soft science relies so much on observation, without any overarching
theory to back it up, it is prone to error and reversal. For example, for a
hundred years, it was believed that neuronal replacement did not occur in
the adult mammalian brain. Within the past three years, this has become
known to be completely false. And the ear is an extension of the nervous
system.

Your statement above may be correct, or it may not, but there is no good
science to back it up. All there is are isolated studies, flawed or not,
which may be used to incorrectly extrapolate the conclusion that perfection
at the level of a Halcro is irrelevant.

Bad scientist alert STANDS!!!

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>> The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
>>>
>>> If science is to be believed, there can be no competitor to this
>>> company's product.
>>
>> If science is to believed, Halcro levels of technical perfection are
>> an interesting technical exercise and little else.
>>
> I distinguish between soft science, which encompasses psychology,
> perception, and certain aspects of biology, and hard science, such as
> physics and molecular biology.

I think most people do. But just because there's a distinction in our minds
doesn't mean that the soft sciences are 100% bad which you later claim.
Furthermore, you hedged your bets by putting a undefined boundary line out
someplace in the science of biology. So you admit that its not clear where
this dividing line is.

> Because soft science relies so much on observation, without any
> overarching theory to back it up, it is prone to error and reversal.
> For example, for a hundred years, it was believed that neuronal
> replacement did not occur in the adult mammalian brain. Within the
> past three years, this has become known to be completely false. And
> the ear is an extension of the nervous system.

So what?

This paper set forth a "threshold of hearing":

H. Fletcher and W. A. Munson, "Loudness, its definition, measurement and
calculation," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 5, pp.
82--108, Oct. 1933.

I think that the last paper investigating the same property of the ears I've
seen was dated some time in early 2002. It basically confirmed the same
results.

Yet delusional golden ear audiophiles such as yourself Morein, like to
disregard the idea that the human ear has known, finite sensitivity limits
that are actually quite high by modern technical standards.

Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was found to
be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10 years ago, guys like
Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use the ear often disregards far
higher levels of sound than might be predicted by a naive reading of F-M.

Did Z-W know what they are talking about? A whole segment of the audio
industry based on "Perceptual Coding" is built on the scientific findings
they enlightened us about. The net of "Perceptual Coding" is that something
like 90% or more distortion (in the sense of loss of information) is
acceptable to the ear, if you pick the right 90% to distort.

> Your statement above may be correct, or it may not, but there is no
> good science to back it up.

There's tons of good science and empirical evidence that backs it up. If
you want to point to some minor point about the mammalian brain as proof
that none of the "soft sciences" are any good, that's up to you. But that
isn't exactly very good logic, is it?

> All there is are isolated studies, flawed
> or not, which may be used to incorrectly extrapolate the conclusion
> that perfection at the level of a Halcro is irrelevant.

Consummate ignorance of the relevant science is noted.

> Bad scientist alert STANDS!!!

You just indicted yourself as a bad scientist again, Morein. Thanks!

Obsess over the Halcro if you want to Morein, it's your money, your life.
Just don't try to use egregiously bad logic like this and your ignorance of
what's known about the sensitivity of the human ear to justify your
obsessions and mislead others.

[Arny Krueger]

"jeffc" > wrote in message
m

> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Oddly, although amplifier design has become mature, it does not
>> appear to me that specification and testing has. The scientist in me
>> says it all has to reduce to numbers, yet it does not...

> Actually it does, but we've simply failed to create devices that
> accurately measure the attributes we (audiophiles) are interested in.

Most such attributes being non-sonic. That's a problem with the soft science
of marketing, not the hard science of measurement of audio parameters.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
[snip]
>
> Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was found to
> be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10 years ago, guys
like
> Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use the ear often disregards far
> higher levels of sound than might be predicted by a naive reading of F-M.
>
The bottom line is that you apparently have hearing acuity which is
substantially below average for a person who is interested in listening to
music. This, combined with a highly self-centric point of view, has tainted
your point of view.

It is indeed possible that the Halcro is excessively perfect. Unfortunately,
you use results like Fletcher Munson in an extrapolative way. Extrapolation
is bad science; it is a form of prediction, not a form of proof. Your lack
of comprehension of this simple fact exacerbates whatever other attitude
problems you have that infect your so-called science.

Research on perceptual encoding has been used to predict what methods work;
however, they did not prove the methods would work. "Proof" is a
mathematical concept which cannot be used to study complexes of electronics,
biology, and information theory.

You persistently think that axiomatic systems exist for human perception.
They do not. An observational science can never prove anything. Axiomatic
systems belong to mathematics. Even in physics, the one thing which is known
is that nothing is proven. Fortunately, physics is in the custody of greater
minds than yours.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>

>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...

>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
> [snip]

>> Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was
>> found to be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10
>> years ago, guys like Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use
>> the ear often disregards far higher levels of sound than might be
>> predicted by a naive reading of F-M.

> The bottom line is that you apparently have hearing acuity which is
> substantially below average for a person who is interested in
> listening to music.

Troll? Gratuitous personal attack? Manic defensiveness?

My hearing is irrelevant. Too many people have done the relevant listening
tests and produced results that support my claims about the Halcro.

The Halcro is overkill. Heck, even the power amp in a Pioneer receiver is
overkill. The audio CD format is overkill. As long as people spin their
wheels overkilling the easy parts of audio we'll take way to long solving
the hard parts that remain unsolved.

> This, combined with a highly self-centric point
> of view, has tainted your point of view.

Gee Bob why am I sure that you've never done any serious reading in the
archives of the AES or ASA?

Why am I sure that you've never given yourself a practical education in the
properties of the ear at www.pcabx.com? I think you're just afraid to find
that you've got flesh-and-blood ears like the rest of us. Chicken. Coward.
bwauk-bwauk-bwauk!

> It is indeed possible that the Halcro is excessively perfect.

It's certain.

> Unfortunately, you use results like Fletcher Munson in an
> extrapolative way.

I do think that logical induction can lead to valid conclusions. If going
from 16/44 to 24/96 doesn't make any reliably audible difference, then some
understanding of the ear and logical induction makes me suspect that going
from 16/44 to 24/192 isn't going to do much either. Then there's all those
well-known authorities and refereed papers that agree with me.

> Extrapolation is bad science; it is a form of
> prediction, not a form of proof.

Then I actually made some 24/192 recordings and darn if science and logical
induction didn't strike again.

The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!

>Your lack of comprehension of this
> simple fact exacerbates whatever other attitude problems you have
> that infect your so-called science.

Hey, let Halcro do their DBTs in accordance with ITU document BS 1116 and
publish the results. Or anybody else.

Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
for.

> Research on perceptual encoding has been used to predict what methods
> work; however, they did not prove the methods would work. "Proof" is a
> mathematical concept which cannot be used to study complexes of
> electronics, biology, and information theory.

This stuff works, Bob. That you keep your head in the sand and deny all the
evidence is not my problem.

> You persistently think that axiomatic systems exist for human
> perception. They do not.

Irrelevant. I've done enough DBTs of power amps to know which way the wind
blows. Tell us about your power amp DBTs conforming to ITU document BS 1116,
Bob. Let's cut to the chase Bob - you don't have any, do you?

The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!

>An observational science can never prove
> anything. Axiomatic systems belong to mathematics. Even in physics,
> the one thing which is known is that nothing is proven. Fortunately,
> physics is in the custody of greater minds than yours.

Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
for.

> But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either directly or
by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They rather obviously think
they are really smart. They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.
>


Bob's IQ just went up 20 points.




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

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
>
> >>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
> > [snip]
>
> >> Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was
> >> found to be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10
> >> years ago, guys like Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use
> >> the ear often disregards far higher levels of sound than might be
> >> predicted by a naive reading of F-M.
>
> > The bottom line is that you apparently have hearing acuity which is
> > substantially below average for a person who is interested in
> > listening to music.
>
> Troll? Gratuitous personal attack? Manic defensiveness?
>
> My hearing is irrelevant. Too many people have done the relevant listening
> tests and produced results that support my claims about the Halcro.
>
> The Halcro is overkill. Heck, even the power amp in a Pioneer receiver is
> overkill. The audio CD format is overkill. As long as people spin their
> wheels overkilling the easy parts of audio we'll take way to long solving
> the hard parts that remain unsolved.
>
> > This, combined with a highly self-centric point
> > of view, has tainted your point of view.
>
> Gee Bob why am I sure that you've never done any serious reading in the
> archives of the AES or ASA?
>
> Why am I sure that you've never given yourself a practical education in
the
> properties of the ear at www.pcabx.com? I think you're just afraid to find
> that you've got flesh-and-blood ears like the rest of us. Chicken. Coward.
> bwauk-bwauk-bwauk!
>
> > It is indeed possible that the Halcro is excessively perfect.
>
> It's certain.
>
> > Unfortunately, you use results like Fletcher Munson in an
> > extrapolative way.
>
> I do think that logical induction can lead to valid conclusions. If going
> from 16/44 to 24/96 doesn't make any reliably audible difference, then
some
> understanding of the ear and logical induction makes me suspect that going
> from 16/44 to 24/192 isn't going to do much either. Then there's all those
> well-known authorities and refereed papers that agree with me.
>
> > Extrapolation is bad science; it is a form of
> > prediction, not a form of proof.
>
> Then I actually made some 24/192 recordings and darn if science and
logical
> induction didn't strike again.
>
> The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!
>
> >Your lack of comprehension of this
> > simple fact exacerbates whatever other attitude problems you have
> > that infect your so-called science.
>
> Hey, let Halcro do their DBTs in accordance with ITU document BS 1116 and
> publish the results. Or anybody else.
>
> Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
> for.
>
> > Research on perceptual encoding has been used to predict what methods
> > work; however, they did not prove the methods would work. "Proof" is a
> > mathematical concept which cannot be used to study complexes of
> > electronics, biology, and information theory.
>
> This stuff works, Bob. That you keep your head in the sand and deny all
the
> evidence is not my problem.
>
> > You persistently think that axiomatic systems exist for human
> > perception. They do not.
>
> Irrelevant. I've done enough DBTs of power amps to know which way the wind
> blows. Tell us about your power amp DBTs conforming to ITU document BS
1116,
> Bob. Let's cut to the chase Bob - you don't have any, do you?
>
> The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!
The acryonym does rather appropriately contain "BS".
I'm not interested in phony paper trails either. You can stamp it with
"official" all you want, but it's just a cover for:
BAD SCIENCE.
>
> >An observational science can never prove
> > anything. Axiomatic systems belong to mathematics. Even in physics,
> > the one thing which is known is that nothing is proven. Fortunately,
> > physics is in the custody of greater minds than yours.
>
> Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
> for.
The facts you cite are merely flawed arguments when they are used in an
extrapolative manner.

>
> > But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
>
> Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either directly
or
> by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They rather obviously think
> they are really smart. They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.
>
I condemn anything like that, or the mention of family tragedies.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
[snip]
>
> > But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
>
> Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either directly
or
> by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They rather obviously think
> they are really smart. They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.
>
I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs make a
right."
Thisis utterly childish.
While his personality could hardly be called childish, it has peculiar
chinks, of which this is one example.

The behavior Arny cites should be condemned, not imitated, by the victim or
by anyone else.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>

> [snip]

....lots of technical comments.

>>> But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

>> Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
>> directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
>> rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
>> smart as you calling me deaf.

> I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
> make a right."

Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse in his
life.

<I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame level in
this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always somebody else's fault.>


BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really and
physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might increase your
tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum well-known within the Usenet
audio groups for verbal abuse.

You can spin it any way you want to Bob, since that seems to be what you
want to do.

> This is utterly childish.

Yes, you are acting kinda immature, Bob. It's a story that's seriously
working on being a decade long. I deconstruct someone technically and
logically and they come on with the personal attacks.

I've tried to keep my comments on this topic as technical as I could.
However, the Middius thing to do is to try to distract the discussion into a
series of personal attacks.

> While his personality could hardly be called childish, it has peculiar
> chinks, of which this is one example.

Except the purported example is a creation of your own mind, Bob.

> The behavior Arny cites should be condemned, not imitated, by the
> victim or by anyone else.

Works for me, Bob. It's clear to me that your efforts into turning my
technical discussion of power amps into a flame thread replete with numerous
personal attacks is a positive step in this direction.

;-)

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> > [snip]
>
> ...lots of technical comments.
>
> >>> But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
>
> >> Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
> >> directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
> >> rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
> >> smart as you calling me deaf.
>
> > I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
> > make a right."
>
> Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse in his
> life.
>
> <I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame level in
> this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always somebody else's
fault.>
>
>
> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really and
> physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might increase your
> tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum well-known within the
Usenet
> audio groups for verbal abuse.
>
I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the trial.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> ...lots of technical comments.
>>
>>>>> But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
>>
>>>> Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
>>>> directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
>>>> rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
>>>> smart as you calling me deaf.
>>
>>> I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
>>> make a right."
>>
>> Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse
>> in his life.
>>
>> <I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame
>> level in this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always
>> somebody else's fault.>
>>
>>
>> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really
>> and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might
>> increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
>> well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
>>
> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
> trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that would take
some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

[John Atkinson]

(Audio Guy) wrote in message
>...
> In article >,
> (John Atkinson) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> > >...
> >> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
> >> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
> >> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
> >> interesting and challenging concepts.
> >
> > I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
> > that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
> > where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
> > voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
> > and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
> > contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
> > its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> > components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
> > hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
> > over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
> >
> > Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
> > amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
> > missing something :-)
>
> Sure, take my words out of context.
>
> You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
> "Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
> part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
> teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
> where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
> computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
> telecom."

My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes the
meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It doesn't
matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial" application,
only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I feel
that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can think of
almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
achieve that level of performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> The behavior Arny cites should be condemned, not imitated, by the victim or
> by anyone else.

On the contrary, it is fully justified by Mr. ****'s own behavior.

If somebody has fantasies that are both pedophiliac and necrophiliac
(as well as involving excretory functions), you might hope he keeps it
to himself. But if that individual posts vivid descriptions of the
fantasies on a public forum such as RAO, and goes on to say "One of my
enemies made me do this," that is a factual basis for accusations of
pedophilia and other abnormalities.

The accusations *against* Krooger are substantial and based on his own
behavior. The accusations *by* Krooger are frivolous and retaliatory.

This distinction has been explained to you many times before. Try to
learn it this time.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>
> >>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>
> >>> [snip]
> >>
> >> ...lots of technical comments.
> >>
> >>>>> But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
> >>
> >>>> Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
> >>>> directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
> >>>> rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
> >>>> smart as you calling me deaf.
> >>
> >>> I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
> >>> make a right."
> >>
> >> Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse
> >> in his life.
> >>
> >> <I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame
> >> level in this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always
> >> somebody else's fault.>
> >>
> >>
> >> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really
> >> and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might
> >> increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
> >> well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
> >>
> > I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
> > trial.
>
> You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that would
take
> some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?
>
If you state that it relates to a factual event of your own life, then I
withdraw the interpretation, and my offer to depose.

If so, state it NOW.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> ...lots of technical comments.
>>>>
>>>>>>> But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
>>>>
>>>>>> Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
>>>>>> directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
>>>>>> rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
>>>>>> smart as you calling me deaf.
>>>>
>>>>> I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two
>>>>> wrongs make a right."
>>>>
>>>> Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse
>>>> in his life.
>>>>
>>>> <I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame
>>>> level in this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always
>>>> somebody else's fault.>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
>>>> really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
>>>> might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
>>>> well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
>>>>
>>> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
>>> trial.
>>
>> You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
>> would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?
>>
> If you state that it relates to a factual event of your own life,
> then I withdraw the interpretation, and my offer to depose.
>
> If so, state it NOW.

So stated.

[Audio Guy]

In article >,
(John Atkinson) writes:
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message
> >...
>> In article >,
>> (John Atkinson) writes:
>> > (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
>> > >...
>> >> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
>> >> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
>> >> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
>> >> interesting and challenging concepts.
>> >
>> > I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
>> > that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
>> > where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
>> > voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
>> > and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
>> > contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
>> > its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
>> > components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
>> > hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
>> > over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
>> >
>> > Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
>> > amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
>> > missing something :-)
>>
>> Sure, take my words out of context.
>>
>> You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
>> "Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
>> part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
>> teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
>> where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
>> computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
>> telecom."
>
> My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes the
> meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It doesn't
> matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial" application,
> only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I feel
> that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
> list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can think of
> almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
> achieve that level of performance.

My point is that relative to other areas of EE, audio IS trivial. As
well as mundane and much less lucrative. I mean, come on, it just
doesn't compare to to something like designing ICs at the sub-micron
level, or optical transmission at a 10 Gbit/sec rate.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>> ...lots of technical comments.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
> >>>>>> directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
> >>>>>> rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
> >>>>>> smart as you calling me deaf.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two
> >>>>> wrongs make a right."
> >>>>
> >>>> Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse
> >>>> in his life.
> >>>>
> >>>> <I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame
> >>>> level in this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always
> >>>> somebody else's fault.>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
> >>>> really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
> >>>> might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
> >>>> well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
> >>>>
> >>> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
> >>> trial.
> >>
> >> You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
> >> would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?
> >>
> > If you state that it relates to a factual event of your own life,
> > then I withdraw the interpretation, and my offer to depose.
> >
> > If so, state it NOW.
>
> So stated.
>
I retract my offer to Mr. Wheeler.
Believe it or not, if you were stuck on the road, I WOULD help you out.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really
>>> and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might
>>> increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
>>> well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
>>>
>> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
>> trial.
>
>You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that would take
>some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
hospital? Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
with people?

Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
in real life.

I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

[Robert Morein]

"Audio Guy" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (John Atkinson) writes:
> > (Audio Guy) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> In article >,
> >> (John Atkinson) writes:
> >> > (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> >> > >...
> >> >> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
> >> >> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
> >> >> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
> >> >> interesting and challenging concepts.
> >> >
> >> > I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
> >> > that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design
fields
> >> > where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as
a
> >> > voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
> >> > and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
> >> > contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
> >> > its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> >> > components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
> >> > hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
> >> > over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical
RF
> >> > amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
> >> > missing something :-)
> >>
> >> Sure, take my words out of context.
> >>
> >> You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
> >> "Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
> >> part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
> >> teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
> >> where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
> >> computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
> >> telecom."
> >
> > My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes the
> > meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It doesn't
> > matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial"
application,
> > only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I feel
> > that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
> > list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can think of
> > almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
> > achieve that level of performance.
>
> My point is that relative to other areas of EE, audio IS trivial. As
> well as mundane and much less lucrative. I mean, come on, it just
> doesn't compare to to something like designing ICs at the sub-micron
> level, or optical transmission at a 10 Gbit/sec rate.

The latest EE Times has an article, "40 gHz and Beyond"

40 gHz!
Of all the centuries, this is the most unlike any other.
I've been told I look about 27 years old, yet I remember futzing with 6BA6's
and other thermionic devices.
When I was a child, I took a Coke-bottle tube out of the back of the TV and
held it in my hand, much to the consternation of my baby sitter.
Then I remember staring at a 2764 under a Nikon binocular microscope, and
marveled at the tiny array.
With a 27C512, you can't see the array!
Now IC lithography is going beyond the realm of visible light, into UV and
soft X-ray.

Hell, when I was a physics grad student, we used to believe that the
two-slit diffraction experiment was explained by Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle.
My dear qmech teacher, Sigurd Larsen, showed us that all "Hidden Variables
Theories" had inherent contradictions.
Turned out VonNeumann's proof was wrong!

Next up: Spintronics, on the Road to 100 gHz Computing!

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>>> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
>>>> really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
>>>> might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
>>>> well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
>>>>
>>> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
>>> trial.
>>
>> You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
>> would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?
>
> Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
> hospital?

Actually, a group of people something like the real-world equivalent you and
your clique, Weil.

> Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
> with people?

I learned that there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at the
wrong time.

> Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
> the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
> in real life.

Letsee, Graham accused me of murdering a family member how many times before
that phone call?

> I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

Just like you Weil, to try to score points based on someone else's real (not
imaginary like yours w/r/t me) pain and suffering.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> Believe it or not, if you were stuck on the road, I WOULD help you
> out.

They give medals for that kind of heroism, don't they?

[Robert Morein]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > (John Atkinson) writes:
> > > (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> > > >...
> > >> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
> > >> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
> > >> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
> > >> interesting and challenging concepts.
> > >
> > > I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
> > > that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
> > > where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as
a
> > > voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
> > > and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
> > > contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
> > > its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> > > components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
> > > hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
> > > over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
> > >
> > > Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
> > > amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
> > > missing something :-)
> >
> > Sure, take my words out of context.
> >
> > You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
> > "Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
> > part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
> > teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
> > where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
> > computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
> > telecom."
>
> My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes the
> meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It doesn't
> matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial" application,
> only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I feel
> that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
> list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can think of
> almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
> achieve that level of performance.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Many words slip into a discourse through inadvertent prejudice or
association, rather than intended meaning.
I think what Audioguy meant to say is that audio amplification is regarded
as trivial not because it is, but because it is bereft of the prestige that
comes with working in a field with actively advancing fundamentals.
For example, Kalman filtering is no less important now than in the early
1960's, yet only the specialists who actually insert these very canonical
algorithms into microcontrollers pay any attention.

Examples of recent, really remarkable advances which incorporate elements
of circuit theory are
high speed serial bus transducers, such as RAMBUS or USB
flash A/D
the neodymium lightwave amplfier
Sun's capacitive chip interface
and a little bit earlier: the gyrator

By contrast, designing and building an audio amplifier is somewhat like
cutting a diamond. It has become an almost timeless skill.

But I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and predict how
an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Guy" > wrote in message


> My point is that relative to other areas of EE, audio IS trivial.

Well certainly, most legacy audio is very cut-and-dried. Other than making
high quality audio smaller/lighter/cheaper there isn't a lot of life left in
the old girl.

Audio could be more interesting and profitable, but so much of its real and
intangible capital has been squandered on snake oil. Audio has been largely
a derivative art for at least 20-30 years.

>As well as mundane and much less lucrative.

Bingo, and one reason why I've never looked for a full-time job in audio
since I was 15. I have some friends who did with varied success, but many of
them either fell off the gravy train or are glad they are coming up on
retirement.

>I mean, come on, it just
> doesn't compare to to something like designing ICs at the sub-micron
> level, or optical transmission at a 10 Gbit/sec rate.

There are a few ways to make the big bucks in audio and not soil oneself
with snake oil, but they are few and far between.

[George M. Middius]

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

> Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
> hospital? Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
> with people?
>
> Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
> the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
> in real life.
>
> I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of
loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear
for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites
where they have his number.

On other, equally deluded days, he has fatuously claimed that he is
despised for his "audio opinions". And on still others, he ludicrously
boasts of having "won" debates with his betters, or "shown up" various
other posters, or "deconstructed" the statements of normal people with
that peculiarity of his illness we know as Kroo-logic.

In real life, he can't hold a job. And there are a ton of reports from
other audio enthusiasts in his neck of the woods that he is a total
prick in real life, very much like the online version and the recorded
version. Maybe Mr. **** will tell us who's to blame for all those
other people not being able to stand him.

Krooger inhabits a peculiar universe in which his own behavior has
nothing to do with how much other people like or dislike him. Instead,
people detest him because he, Krooger, believes he is smarter than
they are. Or because he holds certain opinions in a small area that is
nearly inconsequential to most people. Or because -- and this is my
favorite -- they succumb to my telepathic commands and begin hating
Krooger simply because I willed it.

It's all a great big plot. Only "God" has this kind of power. Maybe
Turdy should ponder that for a while.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> But I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set
> of figures of merit.

Admittedly he hasn't dumbed his tech reports down enough to address the
typical nontechnical audiophile. However, these guys are generally snowed by
the subjectivist poetry and song-and-dance.

> I still can't look at a set of your graphs and predict how an amp will
sound.

Confession of highly ability to make abstraction relate to the real world
noted.

John's charts and graphs could be used to sift the sonically transparent
amps from the others. For the ones that aren't transparent, a fairly
close-sounding model could be constructed from his reports. What more does
it take?

>That's a disconnect.

Only for people who aren't up-to-date about science and audio and don't want
to bother to learn.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:38:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
>>>>> really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
>>>>> might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
>>>>> well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
>>>>>
>>>> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
>>>> trial.
>>>
>>> You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
>>> would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?
>>
>> Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
>> hospital?
>
>Actually, a group of people something like the real-world equivalent you and
>your clique, Weil.
>
>> Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
>> with people?
>
>I learned that there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at the
>wrong time.
>
>> Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
>> the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
>> in real life.
>
>Letsee, Graham accused me of murdering a family member how many times before
>that phone call?
>
>> I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.
>
>Just like you Weil, to try to score points based on someone else's real (not
>imaginary like yours w/r/t me) pain and suffering.
>
I was just giving you some helpful advice.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:38:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
>>>>>> really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
>>>>>> might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a
>>>>>> forum well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for
>>>>> the trial.
>>>>
>>>> You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
>>>> would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>> Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
>>> hospital?
>>
>> Actually, a group of people something like the real-world equivalent
>> you and your clique, Weil.
>>
>>> Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
>>> with people?
>>
>> I learned that there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at
>> the wrong time.
>>
>>> Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
>>> the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
>>> in real life.
>>
>> Letsee, Graham accused me of murdering a family member how many
>> times before that phone call?
>>
>>> I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.
>>
>> Just like you Weil, to try to score points based on someone else's
>> real (not imaginary like yours w/r/t me) pain and suffering.
>>
> I was just giving you some helpful advice.

Right, and Greg Singh is a great intellect with a great sense of humor and
Middius is a woderful loving humanitarian.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:07:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:38:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
>>>>>>> really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
>>>>>>> might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a
>>>>>>> forum well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for
>>>>>> the trial.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
>>>>> would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
>>>> hospital?
>>>
>>> Actually, a group of people something like the real-world equivalent
>>> you and your clique, Weil.
>>>
>>>> Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
>>>> with people?
>>>
>>> I learned that there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at
>>> the wrong time.
>>>
>>>> Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
>>>> the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
>>>> in real life.
>>>
>>> Letsee, Graham accused me of murdering a family member how many
>>> times before that phone call?
>>>
>>>> I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.
>>>
>>> Just like you Weil, to try to score points based on someone else's
>>> real (not imaginary like yours w/r/t me) pain and suffering.
>>>
>> I was just giving you some helpful advice.
>
>Right, and Greg Singh is a great intellect with a great sense of humor and
>Middius is a woderful loving humanitarian.

Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Robert Morein wrote:

> Because soft science relies so much on observation, without any overarching
> theory to back it up, it is prone to error and reversal. For example, for a
> hundred years, it was believed that neuronal replacement did not occur in
> the adult mammalian brain. Within the past three years, this has become
> known to be completely false. And the ear is an extension of the nervous
> system.

Actually, people knew this over a decade ago - by witnessing such things as
people who had half of their brain missing and seeing it re-wire itself
into the non-dead portions.

Of course, like most things in life, widespread acceptance takes about
a decade or two to happen.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

>
>
>>[snip]
>
>
> ...lots of technical comments.
>
>
>>>>But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
>
>
>>>Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
>>>directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
>>>rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
>>>smart as you calling me deaf.
>
>
>>I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
>>make a right."
>
>
> Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse in his
> life.


A wiser man sees such abuse as meaningless background noise.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > The behavior Arny cites should be condemned, not imitated, by the victim
or
> > by anyone else.
>
> On the contrary, it is fully justified by Mr. ****'s own behavior.
>
> If somebody has fantasies that are both pedophiliac and necrophiliac
> (as well as involving excretory functions), you might hope he keeps it
> to himself. But if that individual posts vivid descriptions of the
> fantasies on a public forum such as RAO, and goes on to say "One of my
> enemies made me do this," that is a factual basis for accusations of
> pedophilia and other abnormalities.
>
> The accusations *against* Krooger are substantial and based on his own
> behavior. The accusations *by* Krooger are frivolous and retaliatory.
>
> This distinction has been explained to you many times before. Try to
> learn it this time.
>
Will you be shipping me a blackboard and chalk?

[normanstrong]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> (Audio Guy) wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > (John Atkinson) writes:
> > > (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> > > >...
> > >> Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
> > >> design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
> > >> audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much
more
> > >> interesting and challenging concepts.
> > >
> > > I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so
sure
> > > that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design
fields
> > > where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain;
act as a
> > > voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load
impedances
> > > and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband
noise
> > > contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter
what
> > > its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> > > components under all load conditions that are below the
threshold of
> > > hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the
above
> > > over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
> > >
> > > Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a
typical RF
> > > amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may
just be
> > > missing something :-)
> >
> > Sure, take my words out of context.
> >
> > You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
> > "Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
> > part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools
even
> > teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is
it
> > where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or
design
> > computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
> > telecom."
>
> My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes
the
> meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It
doesn't
> matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial"
application,
> only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I
feel
> that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
> list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can
think of
> almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
> achieve that level of performance.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Certainly more than half of the requirements you placed on your
amplifier design detailed in your first reply to this header disappear
if the designer knows the characteristics of the source and load ahead
of time. It is for this reason that I forever wonder at how few
speakers come with their own amplifier--at least in the home hi-fi
industry.

Norm Strong

[John Atkinson]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>...
> I think what Audioguy meant to say is that audio amplification is
> regarded as trivial not because it is, but because it is bereft of the
> prestige that comes with working in a field with actively advancing
> fundamentals.

If so, then I don't disagree.

> I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
> figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and
> predict how an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.

Unfortunately yes. But two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife,
presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at
how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between
the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae.

This work is not at the stage where someone could plug measured results
into a spreadsheet and out pops a "good" "moderate" "bad" judgment, but
eventually something like that will be possible. Of course, a human
reviewer will still be needed to produce what Tom Nosuaine calls the
"audio poetry." :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

"normanstrong" > wrote in message
news:<lmVlb.3955$mZ5.23026@attbi_s54>...
> Certainly more than half of the requirements you placed on your
> amplifier design detailed in your first reply to this header disappear
> if the designer knows the characteristics of the source and load ahead
> of time. It is for this reason that I forever wonder at how few
> speakers come with their own amplifier--at least in the home hi-fi
> industry.

Hi Norm, I believe that the apparent restriction of customer choice that
this represents is a major impediment to successful marketing of an active
speaker. Even if the customer buys exactly the amplifier that the speaker
designer feels works best with his loudspeaker, and would therefore be
the one that could be supplied in an integrated package, it appears to be
important to customers to have the widest amplifier choice available.

Probably only Meridian has made much headway in the audiophile market
selling integrated loudspeaker/amplifier packages.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

PS: Your letter on the purported advantages of hi-rez audio media
appears in the ne (November) issue of Stereophile.

[dave weil]

On 23 Oct 2003 14:13:21 -0700, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

>> I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
>> figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and
>> predict how an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.
>
>Unfortunately yes. But two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife,
>presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at
>how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
>amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
>perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between
>the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae.

Damn...you're making my head hurt.

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On 23 Oct 2003 14:13:21 -0700, (John
> Atkinson) wrote:
>
> >> I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
> >> figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and
> >> predict how an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.
> >
> >Unfortunately yes. But two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife,
> >presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at
> >how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
> >amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
> >perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between
> >the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae.
>
> Damn...you're making my head hurt.

I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > > But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.
> >
> > Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either directly
> or
> > by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They rather obviously
think
> > they are really smart. They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.
> >
> I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs make a
> right."
> Thisis utterly childish.
> While his personality could hardly be called childish, it has peculiar
> chinks, of which this is one example.
>
> The behavior Arny cites should be condemned, not imitated, by the victim
or
> by anyone else.
>

The behavior Arny exhibits should be condemned.




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

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2003 14:13:21 -0700, (John
> Atkinson) wrote:
>
>
>>>I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
>>>figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and
>>>predict how an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.
>>
>>Unfortunately yes. But two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife,
>>presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at
>>how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
>>amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
>>perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between
>>the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae.
>
>
> Damn...you're making my head hurt.



Ran out of Demerol?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> >
> I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
trial.
>

We all wish to depose you.




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

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
> Krooger inhabits a peculiar universe in which his own behavior has
> nothing to do with how much other people like or dislike him. Instead,
> people detest him because he, Krooger, believes he is smarter than
> they are. Or because he holds certain opinions in a small area that is
> nearly inconsequential to most people. Or because -- and this is my
> favorite -- they succumb to my telepathic commands and begin hating
> Krooger simply because I willed it.
>
> It's all a great big plot. Only "God" has this kind of power.


I thought that Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson had it too.




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

[dave weil]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:30:36 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>> On 23 Oct 2003 14:13:21 -0700, (John
>> Atkinson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
>>>>figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and
>>>>predict how an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately yes. But two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife,
>>>presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at
>>>how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
>>>amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
>>>perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between
>>>the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae.
>>
>>
>> Damn...you're making my head hurt.
>
>
>
>Ran out of Demerol?

Why? Are you running a special?

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > Krooger inhabits a peculiar universe in which his own behavior has
> > nothing to do with how much other people like or dislike him. Instead,
> > people detest him because he, Krooger, believes he is smarter than
> > they are. Or because he holds certain opinions in a small area that is
> > nearly inconsequential to most people. Or because -- and this is my
> > favorite -- they succumb to my telepathic commands and begin hating
> > Krooger simply because I willed it.
> >
> > It's all a great big plot. Only "God" has this kind of power.
>
>
> I thought that Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and Pat
> Robertson had it too.


You forgot the smiley. Check with Lionella -- she has loads of extras.

And of course you're distorting what I said. It's their utterly verbal
preaching and perorating, not their beaming of thoughts, that
influences the ovine oafs in their flocks. Do you see the difference,
or do you prefer to be offended anew by something that never happened?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > Krooger inhabits a peculiar universe in which his own behavior has
> > > nothing to do with how much other people like or dislike him. Instead,
> > > people detest him because he, Krooger, believes he is smarter than
> > > they are. Or because he holds certain opinions in a small area that is
> > > nearly inconsequential to most people. Or because -- and this is my
> > > favorite -- they succumb to my telepathic commands and begin hating
> > > Krooger simply because I willed it.
> > >
> > > It's all a great big plot. Only "God" has this kind of power.
> >
> >
> > I thought that Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and Pat
> > Robertson had it too.
>
>
> You forgot the smiley. Check with Lionella -- she has loads of extras.
>
> And of course you're distorting what I said. It's their utterly verbal
> preaching and perorating, not their beaming of thoughts, that
> influences the ovine oafs in their flocks. Do you see the difference,
> or do you prefer to be offended anew by something that never happened?
>

I REFUSE to type smiley's.
Sometime's I'll use an old fashioned exclamation point once in a while.




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

[Robert Morein]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >...
> > I think what Audioguy meant to say is that audio amplification is
> > regarded as trivial not because it is, but because it is bereft of the
> > prestige that comes with working in a field with actively advancing
> > fundamentals.
>
> If so, then I don't disagree.
>
> > I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
> > figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and
> > predict how an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.
>
> Unfortunately yes. But two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife,
> presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at
> how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
> amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
> perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between
> the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae.
>
That sounds very promising.
There may yet be room for audio poetry, however.
If I may liken audio to a data stream with "features", the mere audibility
of a feature "discrepancy" may not correlate with the emotional importance
to the listener. The frequency of the "feature", and thus the "discrepancy",
also depends upon the musical material. Treble grain may be barely audible,
and comprise an insignificant portion of the power spectrum, yet be as
irritating as chalk on a blackboard. And loose, tubby bass may be considered
a benefit to some.

The most consistent thing about amplifiers I have noticed is my personal
need to match the amplifier to the speaker. Bright amps work well with soft
domes, while softer, ie., MOSFET amps, work better for me with hard domes.
The right wine for the meal.

But I have had in the back of my mind using a Hafler type bridge to get the
difference signal and look at the spectra.
I was largely dissuaded by the thought that this was a solution that nobody
wanted. as many members of this group might state.

> This work is not at the stage where someone could plug measured results
> into a spreadsheet and out pops a "good" "moderate" "bad" judgment, but
> eventually something like that will be possible. Of course, a human
> reviewer will still be needed to produce what Tom Nosuaine calls the
> "audio poetry." :-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[Robert Morein]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
> >
> > > > Krooger inhabits a peculiar universe in which his own behavior has
> > > > nothing to do with how much other people like or dislike him.
Instead,
> > > > people detest him because he, Krooger, believes he is smarter than
> > > > they are. Or because he holds certain opinions in a small area that
is
> > > > nearly inconsequential to most people. Or because -- and this is my
> > > > favorite -- they succumb to my telepathic commands and begin hating
> > > > Krooger simply because I willed it.
> > > >
> > > > It's all a great big plot. Only "God" has this kind of power.
> > >
> > >
> > > I thought that Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and Pat
> > > Robertson had it too.
> >
> >
> > You forgot the smiley. Check with Lionella -- she has loads of extras.
> >
> > And of course you're distorting what I said. It's their utterly verbal
> > preaching and perorating, not their beaming of thoughts, that
> > influences the ovine oafs in their flocks. Do you see the difference,
> > or do you prefer to be offended anew by something that never happened?
> >
>
> I REFUSE to type smiley's.
> Sometime's I'll use an old fashioned exclamation point once in a while.
>
You're mean.
:):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0): ):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::
):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):)

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>

> >
> You're mean.
>
:):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0): ):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::
> ):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):)
>
>

...l..




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

[Nousaine]

(John Atkinson) wrote:


>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>...
>> I think what Audioguy meant to say is that audio amplification is
>> regarded as trivial not because it is, but because it is bereft of the
>> prestige that comes with working in a field with actively advancing
>> fundamentals.
>
>If so, then I don't disagree.
>
>> I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
>> figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and
>> predict how an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.
>
>Unfortunately yes. But two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife,
>presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at
>how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
>amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
>perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation between
>the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its spuriae.

OK I heard that paper. So how does that show that any ampliifer on the market
currently available or on your RCL (congratulations on learning how to count)
is "better sounding" than any other with regard to the GedLee Metric?

>
>This work is not at the stage where someone could plug measured results
>into a spreadsheet and out pops a "good" "moderate" "bad" judgment, but
>eventually something like that will be possible. Of course, a human
>reviewer will still be needed to produce what Tom Nosuaine calls the
>"audio poetry." :-)

So how are your bais-controlled validation listening tests going? I'm comforted
that you'll be there for the "poetry" part. Wouldn't it be horrible for
enthusiasts to learn from a spec-sheet "number" that their Yamaha integrated
amplifier sounds exactly like a 12K high-end set of mono-blocks ?:)

[Nousaine]

"normanstrong" wrote:

....snips.....

>
>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message

>> > > I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so
>sure
>> > > that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design
>fields
>> > > where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain;
>act as a
>> > > voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load
>impedances
>> > > and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband
>noise
>> > > contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter
>what
>> > > its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
>> > > components under all load conditions that are below the
>threshold of
>> > > hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the
>above
>> > > over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
>> > >
>> > > Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a
>typical RF
>> > > amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may
>just be
>> > > missing something :-)

I don't know if Mr Atkinson is missing anything. But I wonder exactly how it is
that with the exception of high-ouput impedance amplifiers that exactly NO ONE
hasd ever shown in a reasonably well bias-controlled experiment (including Mr
Atkinson's; indeed his personally conducted large trial experiments showed that
even with high-output impedance amplifiers there was no sonic difference) that
modern amplfiers have any sound of their own.


>> >
>> > Sure, take my words out of context.
>> >
>> > You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
>> > "Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
>> > part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools
>even
>> > teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is
>it
>> > where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or
>design
>> > computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
>> > telecom."
>>
>> My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes
>the
>> meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It
>doesn't
>> matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial"
>application,
>> only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I
>feel
>> that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
>> list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can
>think of
>> almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
>> achieve that level of performance.
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile


OK; which ones that you recommend have been shown to sound different with a
bias controlled listening test?

>
>Certainly more than half of the requirements you placed on your
>amplifier design detailed in your first reply to this header disappear
>if the designer knows the characteristics of the source and load ahead
>of time. It is for this reason that I forever wonder at how few
>speakers come with their own amplifier--at least in the home hi-fi
>industry.
>
>Norm Strong

Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own
amplifiers and application specific EQ.

I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.

[Nousaine]

(John Atkinson) wrote:

>"normanstrong" > wrote in message
>news:<lmVlb.3955$mZ5.23026@attbi_s54>...
>> Certainly more than half of the requirements you placed on your
>> amplifier design detailed in your first reply to this header disappear
>> if the designer knows the characteristics of the source and load ahead
>> of time. It is for this reason that I forever wonder at how few
>> speakers come with their own amplifier--at least in the home hi-fi
>> industry.
>
>Hi Norm, I believe that the apparent restriction of customer choice that
>this represents is a major impediment to successful marketing of an active
>speaker. Even if the customer buys exactly the amplifier that the speaker
>designer feels works best with his loudspeaker, and would therefore be
>the one that could be supplied in an integrated package, it appears to be
>important to customers to have the widest amplifier choice available.

I have a different take on this. An average "high-end" enthusiast may already
have a stack of amplifiers or at least a single expensive 2-channel amplifier
at his/her disposal. Anybody else has purchased a modrn receiver with 5
amplifier channels already built into the chassis.

People just don't see the reason to buy power again. The neo-phytes don't get
it. The high-enders never WILL get it; it's too apparent. So the best way to
better sounding loudspeakers will remain foreign to the market UNTIL the
current generation of computer users (who expect their speakers to be powered)
are in the loop.

>
>Probably only Meridian has made much headway in the audiophile market
>selling integrated loudspeaker/amplifier packages.
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile
>
>PS: Your letter on the purported advantages of hi-rez audio media
>appears in the ne (November) issue of Stereophile.

That take is likely a fair statement of the current market. Paradigm stopped
offering their Active series which was one of the better performing speaker
systems ever to reach the market. Yet few would buy them.

[Robert Morein]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> > >
> > You're mean.
> >
>
:):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0): ):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::
> > ):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):):):):)::):);)0):)
> >
> >
>
> ..l..
>
Me 2.

[Robert Morein]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> "normanstrong" wrote:
>
> ...snips.....
>
> >
> >"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>
> >> > > I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so
> >sure
> >> > > that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design
> >fields
> >> > > where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain;
> >act as a
> >> > > voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load
> >impedances
> >> > > and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband
> >noise
> >> > > contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter
> >what
> >> > > its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> >> > > components under all load conditions that are below the
> >threshold of
> >> > > hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the
> >above
> >> > > over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a
> >typical RF
> >> > > amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may
> >just be
> >> > > missing something :-)
>
> I don't know if Mr Atkinson is missing anything. But I wonder exactly how
it is
> that with the exception of high-ouput impedance amplifiers that exactly NO
ONE
> hasd ever shown in a reasonably well bias-controlled experiment (including
Mr
> Atkinson's; indeed his personally conducted large trial experiments showed
that
> even with high-output impedance amplifiers there was no sonic difference)
that
> modern amplfiers have any sound of their own.
>
>
> >> >
> >> > Sure, take my words out of context.
> >> >
> >> > You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
> >> > "Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
> >> > part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools
> >even
> >> > teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is
> >it
> >> > where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or
> >design
> >> > computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
> >> > telecom."
> >>
> >> My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes
> >the
> >> meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It
> >doesn't
> >> matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial"
> >application,
> >> only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I
> >feel
> >> that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
> >> list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can
> >think of
> >> almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
> >> achieve that level of performance.
> >>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
>
>
> OK; which ones that you recommend have been shown to sound different with
a
> bias controlled listening test?
>
> >
> >Certainly more than half of the requirements you placed on your
> >amplifier design detailed in your first reply to this header disappear
> >if the designer knows the characteristics of the source and load ahead
> >of time. It is for this reason that I forever wonder at how few
> >speakers come with their own amplifier--at least in the home hi-fi
> >industry.
> >
> >Norm Strong
>
> Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own
> amplifiers and application specific EQ.
>
> I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.
>
What speaker do you refer to?

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
>
>>>Krooger inhabits a peculiar universe in which his own behavior has
>>>nothing to do with how much other people like or dislike him. Instead,
>>>people detest him because he, Krooger, believes he is smarter than
>>>they are. Or because he holds certain opinions in a small area that is
>>>nearly inconsequential to most people. Or because -- and this is my
>>>favorite -- they succumb to my telepathic commands and begin hating
>>>Krooger simply because I willed it.
>>>
>>>It's all a great big plot. Only "God" has this kind of power.
>>
>>
>>I thought that Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and Pat
>>Robertson had it too.
>
>
>
> You forgot the smiley. Check with Lionella -- she has loads of extras.
>

Lionella use what she can in order to be better understood... You don't.

Georgetta one more question please :
Don't you think that we are more and more looking to 2 old lesbians
after a noisy rupture ? ;O)

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om

> Unfortunately yes. But two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his
> wife, presented at the recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by
> looking at how the spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function
> of a typical amplifier can be examined using a masking model
> representing human perception. Their provisional results show
> excellent correlation between the metric for a given amplifier and
> the audibility of its spuriae.

Geddes' specialty is loudspeaker design and evaluation. Therefore he's
concerned with relatively high levels of distortion by the standards of
modern audio power amplifiers.

[The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 >
wrote:

>I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...

LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html

--
td

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra > wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...
>
> LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!
>
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html

Just remember the 'th' is silent!

Here's the site with animations of the orbit:

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...

> Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of
> loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear
> for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites
> where they have his number.

As usual, you're lying Middius. Or maybe you're so stupid you actually
believe this. You've tried to dominate RAO for years and force me off by
various means. The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there is
relatively gentle and sweet for me. I mostly just come here to futiley check
for intelligent life, lead newbies away to the promised lands, and feed the
animals.

It's ironic Middius that the groups where you don't go are mostly relatively
healthy places were on-topic discussions dominate. In contrast RAO, which
is your own personal turf. is widely despised and hated. Almost as widely
despised and hated as you! Newbies frequently run away screaming.
Experienced hands warn people away. You've done a great job with RAO,
Middius. Your mother should be proud.

> On other, equally deluded days, he has fatuously claimed that he is
> despised for his "audio opinions".

Again Middius you're lying. In most audio groups my opinions get a fair
hearing, free of your inane comments and the insipid off-topic trolling of
your acolytes. Works for me. Works for me even with the gratuitous
interference.

>And on still others, he ludicrously
> boasts of having "won" debates with his betters, or "shown up" various
> other posters, or "deconstructed" the statements of normal people with
> that peculiarity of his illness we know as Kroo-logic.

Middius as if you should talk about logic. You and your saprophytes are some
of the biggest, easiest targets for deconstruction that I find in all of the
audio groups in Usenet. Face it, you knew you hated me the first time I
deconstructed your false claims about tubes, and it's been downhill ever
since.

> In real life, he can't hold a job.

It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of
your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their
jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say
put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of
you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's start with your job Middius. Who is
your employer and what is your job title? Really.

> And there are a ton of reports from
> other audio enthusiasts in his neck of the woods that he is a total
> prick in real life, very much like the online version and the recorded
> version.

Yet another lie Middius, given that none of your current informants know me
in real life. Back in the days before you chased JJ off, I believe he
mentioned that he had actually met me in person and found that I was at
least average to deal with.

> Maybe Mr. **** will tell us who's to blame for all those
> other people not being able to stand him.

Yet another figment of the overheated Middius imagination.

> Krooger inhabits a peculiar universe in which his own behavior has
> nothing to do with how much other people like or dislike him.

Wrong again Middius. I think that the fact that I enjoy deconstructing
fallacious claims way too much and do it way too often has a lot to do with
why a lot of people dislike me. But you know what Middius, I'm not going to
cut back on my enjoyment of other people's foolishness just to please a
bunch of losers like you and your clique.

This is a marketplace of ideas Middius, and if your ideas about audio (which
mostly don't seem to exist) don't sell, don't blame me.

> Instead,
> people detest him because he, Krooger, believes he is smarter than
> they are.

If it were an idle claim, then you guys would just laugh it off. But I prove
day in and day out that your thinking is flawed and your facts are bogus. It
hurts. You feel pain. It makes you mad. You could improve your thinking and
polish up your facts if you wanted to. But, you're too stupid or too lazy.

> Or because he holds certain opinions in a small area that is
> nearly inconsequential to most people.

So inconsequential that one of your parasites is suing me! LOL!

> Or because -- and this is my
> favorite -- they succumb to my telepathic commands and begin hating
> Krooger simply because I willed it.

Telepathy is based on brain power and you've got none to spare, Middius.
Stop giving yourself undeserved compliments.

> It's all a great big plot.

Just a small one based on a few small minds.

> Only "God" has this kind of power.

That might be meaningful Middius, if you believed in God. But you don't.
You're just making meaningless statements. Again.

> Maybe Turdy should ponder that for a while.

Maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee, Middius.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
>Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there is
>relatively gentle and sweet for me.

Except for RAHE apparently.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
>works.

And we know why *that* is, don't we?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> > The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
> >works.

> And we know why *that* is, don't we?

Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing,
unthinking fear.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
> >Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there
is
> >relatively gentle and sweet for me.
>
> Except for RAHE apparently.

The RAHE moderators apparently decided to get rid of me to solve their
problems with anti-DBT trollers. Didn't work.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
> >Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there is
> >relatively gentle and sweet for me.
>
> Except for RAHE apparently.

Looks like Krooger was really stung by my concise and accurate recap
of his paranoid fantasies.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
>
>
> Looks like Krooger was really stung by my concise and accurate recap
> of his paranoid fantasies.
>
>
Did I already tell you that you sound like Trotsky ?
Same unashmed modesty. ;o)

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil said:
>
> > >The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
> > >Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there
is
> > >relatively gentle and sweet for me.
> >
> > Except for RAHE apparently.
>
> Looks like Krooger was really stung by my concise and accurate recap
> of his paranoid fantasies.

No, I got bored and started working down my list of posts from lesser forms
of life.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:12:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
>> >works.
>
>> And we know why *that* is, don't we?
>
>Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing,
>unthinking fear.

Actually, I think that my answer has included respect for my
co-workers.

But thank you for playing.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:14:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
>> >Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there
>is
>> >relatively gentle and sweet for me.
>>
>> Except for RAHE apparently.
>
>The RAHE moderators apparently decided to get rid of me to solve their
>problems with anti-DBT trollers. Didn't work.

Sorry, but they didn't "get rid of you". *You* got rid of you.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:14:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
> >> >Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life
there
> >is
> >> >relatively gentle and sweet for me.
> >>
> >> Except for RAHE apparently.
> >
> >The RAHE moderators apparently decided to get rid of me to solve their
> >problems with anti-DBT trollers. Didn't work.
>
> Sorry, but they didn't "get rid of you". *You* got rid of you.

Let me put it this way, I shed no tears. The place has been ruined by the
brain-dead anti-DBTers and even the moderators know it.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...

> Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
> chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.

Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:12:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
> >> >works.
> >
> >> And we know why *that* is, don't we?
> >
> >Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing,
> >unthinking fear.
>
> Actually, I think that my answer has included respect for my
> co-workers.

Oh, you don't want them to become jealous when you get flowers?

LOL!

[Nexus 6]

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...
>
>
> LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!
>
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html

I'm not sure I like the name, but that orbit is craaaazeeeee...

Nexus 6

[Nexus 6]

MiNE 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra > wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...
>>
>>LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!
>>
>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html
>
>
> Just remember the 'th' is silent!

Sounds like a job for Frank Sinatra.

>
> Here's the site with animations of the orbit:
>
> http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html

Ah.

Corkscrewy horseshoes.

Nexus 6

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:31:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:14:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The good news is that you are violently hated on most of the
>> >> >Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life
>there
>> >is
>> >> >relatively gentle and sweet for me.
>> >>
>> >> Except for RAHE apparently.
>> >
>> >The RAHE moderators apparently decided to get rid of me to solve their
>> >problems with anti-DBT trollers. Didn't work.
>>
>> Sorry, but they didn't "get rid of you". *You* got rid of you.
>
>Let me put it this way, I shed no tears. The place has been ruined by the
>brain-dead anti-DBTers and even the moderators know it.

Funny how it used to be:

"That would work a real hardship on guys like Middius and Gruvmyster.
My idea of real torment for them would be to require them to get 20
posts approved on RAHE... ;-)"

Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.

Of course, there's this as well:

"That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
weak. If you were more knowlegable you would probably not be so snowed
by him".

Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that
you are unwilling to do.

Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post
at RAHE.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
>> chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.
>
>Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.

I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of
the '"virtual hospital".

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:33:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:12:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
>> >> >works.
>> >
>> >> And we know why *that* is, don't we?
>> >
>> >Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing,
>> >unthinking fear.
>>
>> Actually, I think that my answer has included respect for my
>> co-workers.
>
>Oh, you don't want them to become jealous when you get flowers?

No, since I actually BRING flowers from my garden, it would be no
surprise for me to be linked with flowers.

I don't expect *you*of all people to understand why I wouldn't want my
co-workers dragged into RAO. After all, you posted your wife's work
telephone number just so you could try and win "debating trade points"
about a non-audio issue.

[MiNE 109]

In article <sGbmb.3887$d87.2541@okepread05>,
Nexus 6 > wrote:

> The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...
> >
> >
> > LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!
> >
> > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html
>
> I'm not sure I like the name, but that orbit is craaaazeeeee...

Could've Pict a better name, eh?

[S888Wheel]

>It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of
>your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their
>jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
>works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say
>put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of
>you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's
>start with your job Middius. Who is
>your employer and what is your job title? Really.
>

It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are
interested in new material for personal attacks. Most people are simply not
interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are
purely malliceous.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
> >> chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.
> >
> >Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.
>
> I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of
> the '"virtual hospital".

That? It just shows how perverted your idea of getting the chip off YOUR
shoulder is, Weil. Oh well, so much for getting advice about how to treat
people right from an admitted dominatrix. BTW Weil, do you wear a leather
apron and carry handcuffs at work?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.
>
> Of course, there's this as well:

> "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
> know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
> anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
> to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
> weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed
> by him".

Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a99165.3905906%40wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.co m

Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
you're trying to abuse it.

To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for
showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I
don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago.

> Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that
> you are unwilling to do.

Weil, how does this relate you cleaning up your dominatrix act here on RAO,
at this time?

> Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post at
RAHE.

More delusional postings from Weil.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> >It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all
of
> >your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about
their
> >jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where
he
> >works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I
say
> >put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot
of
> >you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's
> >start with your job Middius. Who is
> >your employer and what is your job title? Really.
> >
>
> It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are
> interested in new material for personal attacks.

Thanks for admitting that you would be embarrassed if we were to know what
your job is, sockpuppet wheel.

> Most people are simply not
> interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are
> purely malliceous.

Actually, one of my interests would be educating you to write like a
literate person, sockpuppet wheel. But I'll take your final acquiescence to
using a standard posting style as a sign of your desire for personal
improvement.

[S888Wheel]

Arny said

>> >It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all
>of
>> >your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about
>their
>> >jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where
>he
>> >works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I
>say
>> >put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot
>of
>> >you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's
>> >start with your job Middius. Who is
>> >your employer and what is your job title? Really.
>> >

I said

>
>> It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are
>> interested in new material for personal attacks.

Arny said

>
>Thanks for admitting that you would be embarrassed if we were to know what
>your job is, sockpuppet wheel.

I made no such admission. I am very proud of my work. But it is this sort of
tactic of yours, taking something and misrepresenting it that I am talking
about.

I said

>
>> Most people are simply not
>> interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are
>> purely malliceous.

Arny said

>
>Actually, one of my interests would be educating you to write like a
>literate person, sockpuppet wheel. But I'll take your final acquiescence to
>using a standard posting style as a sign of your desire for personal
>improvement.

Yet another fine example of the fact that your intnetions on RAO are purely
malliceous.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:14:36 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:32:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >> Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
>> >> chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.
>> >
>> >Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.
>>
>> I did, when I gave you some friendly advice about how to stay out of
>> the '"virtual hospital".
>
>That? It just shows how perverted your idea of getting the chip off YOUR
>shoulder is, Weil. Oh well, so much for getting advice about how to treat
>people right from an admitted dominatrix.

The last statement is of course a blad-faced lie.

It's your m.o., right?

That's why you're going to court.

<shrug>

>BTW Weil, do you wear a leather apron and carry handcuffs at work?

Nope. A cloth apron, a corkscrew, a crumber, and some pens, any of the
last three are probably giving you some wet thoughts right about now.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:20:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.
>>
>> Of course, there's this as well:
>
>> "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
>> know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
>> anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
>> to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
>> weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed
>> by him".
>
>Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that quote:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a99165.3905906%40wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.co m
>
>Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
>you're trying to abuse it.
>
>To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for
>showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I
>don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago.

"How about 5 months ago?

Ironically, Richman wrote this 4 years ago. History shows that in the
past 4 years RAO has continued to founder worse and worse, and RAHE
has thrived.

Moderation of RAO poses no particular threat to me because I have
proven that I do well under moderation. Google finds about 2,500 RAHE
posts that I've authored, an average of over one a day for about six
years. I also do well in the 10 other unmoderated audio groups I
currently contribute to".

Google is a bitch, ain't it, Mr. Krueger?

>> Looks like you've been "forced to clean up your act". Something that
>> you are unwilling to do.
>
>Weil, how does this relate you cleaning up your dominatrix act here on RAO,
>at this time?

What "dominatrix act"? Some projection on your part?

>> Yep, I remember a day when it was considered a sin by you not to post at
>RAHE.
>
>More delusional postings from Weil.

"Face it North, you've been afraid to post in RAHE because you can't
keep a civil mouth".

"> > > Responding to assorted attacks with my own brand
> > >of counterattacks? For the most part, I try to stick to
> > >topic and offer up helpful advice to people. And unlike you,
> > >I do post on RAHE and RAT, and I have no problems with the
> > >RAHE moderators at all.

> > Of course you don't. You fit right in.

Notice that Mr. Weil is acting like a low-conflict environment is a
cancer ward. The real truth is that "fitting in" at RAHE means
accepting a neutral authority and the accountability that involves.
See what I mean by Mr. Weil's double standard when it comes to
accountability? Apparently accountability that does not favor his
preferences for freely making personal attacks is a bad thing".

Oooohhhh, looks like Arnold has exposed his *own* double standard...

OUCH!

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks for
> >showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I
> >don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more ago.

Oh Mr. ****, if you please: Didn't you recently claim you had
"deconstructed" something I said in a "debate" <snicker> about tubes?
How long ago was that? Back in '96, you used to claim that I had a
"secret agenda" of "tubes uber alles" or something like that. Of
course you fabricated that gibberish, but even so, you are basing
today's lies on posts that are 7+ years old. Are you being
hypocritical again, you dirty little 'borg puke?


> Google is a bitch, ain't it, Mr. Krueger?

Arnii can't really answer that honestly because he doesn't know how to
use search engines.

[Lionel]

S888Wheel wrote:
>>It's interesting Middius that there's a common thread through you and all of
>>your brainless parasites. None of you will say anything specific about their
>>jobs. The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
>>works. Yet you yammer and whine about the fact that I'm self-employed. I say
>>put up or shut up. If jobs are an issue, why haven't the whole rotten lot of
>>you come clean about YOUR jobs? Let's
>>start with your job Middius. Who is
>>your employer and what is your job title? Really.
>>
>
>
> It's very simple Arny. You are clearly not interested in our jobs, you are
> interested in new material for personal attacks. Most people are simply not
> interested in feeding personal information to someone who's interests are
> purely malliceous.


It's time for S888Wheel to demand his today ration of insults.
What a moron you are Mr. Exhibitionist.
If you try again to play piano on me, please remember that I love
Rachmaninoff.

[Nousaine]

"Robert Morein" wrote:

nousaine wrote:
>>
>> Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own
>> amplifiers and application specific EQ.
>>
>> I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.
>>
>What speaker do you refer to?

I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger ) wrote in message
>:
>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
om
>> two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the
>> recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the
>> spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
>> amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
>> perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation
>> between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its
>> spuriae.
>
> Geddes' specialty is loudspeaker design and evaluation. Therefore
> he's concerned with relatively high levels of distortion by the
> standards of modern audio power amplifiers.

Yes, the two Geddes-Lee AES papers -- Auditory Perception of Nonlinear
Distortion -- were based on work intended to model loudspeaker
nonlinearity, but were intended to present the general case. From the
second of the two papers: "While the primary focus of this study is to
understand the perception of loudspeaker distortion, a wide variety of
nonlinear transfer functions was applied to yield data that may be
applicable to a broad array of systems...The intention of this study was
to sample a broad spectrum of nonlinearities that could represent
virtually any system, and not be limited to just a loudspeaker, or an
amplifier."

I thought it clearly appropriate, therefore, to examine the Geddes-Lee
proposal in the context of amplifier transfer functions. If you feel
differently, Mr. Krueger, then that is your prerogative, of course. (I
assume you have read the papers.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

In message >
Tom Nousaine ) wrote:
(John Atkinson) wrote:
>> two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the
>> recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the
>> spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
>> amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
>> perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation
>> between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its
>> spuriae.
>
> OK I heard {those papers}. So how does that show that any {amplifier}
> on the market currently available or on your {Recommended Components
> List}...is "better sounding" than any other with regard to the GedLee
> Metric?

I thought I had answered that question with the next paragraph in my
posting:

>> This work is not at the stage where someone could plug measured results
>> into a spreadsheet and out pops a "good" "moderate" "bad" judgment...

Seems clear enough to me.

> Wouldn't it be horrible for enthusiasts to learn from a spec-sheet
> "number" that their Yamaha integrated amplifier sounds exactly like a
> 12K high-end set of mono-blocks

Why? If it were true, that would be great news. However, if you examine
the list of necessary specifications I gave in the posting that started
this thread, I would have thought it extremely unlikely that an
inexpensive amplifier would sound the same _under all conditions_ as a
design where the designer has been able to use considerably greater
resources.

That two amplifiers might be able to produce the same "number" under a
carefully controlled subset of conditions is hardly a complete
description of their performance, I would have thought. What _I_ would
be interested in would be to use something like the Geddes-Lee metric
to explore a component's performance _envelope_ under a wide range of
conditions. Audiophiles could thus clearly see what the more expensive
products had to offer and make up their own minds whether the benefit
was worth the asking price.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

MiNE 109 > wrote in message
>...
> In article >,
> The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra > wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...
> >
> > LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!
> >
> > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html
>
> Just remember the 'th' is silent!
>
> Here's the site with animations of the orbit:
>
> http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html

Extraordinary! Looks like something form the world of Terry Pratchett.
(Next you'll be telling us it's "turtles all the way down.")

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Nexus 6]

MiNE 109 wrote:
> In article <sGbmb.3887$d87.2541@okepread05>,
> Nexus 6 > wrote:
>
>
>>The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!
>>>
>>>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html
>>
>>I'm not sure I like the name, but that orbit is craaaazeeeee...
>
>
> Could've Pict a better name, eh?

Groan.

Split my skull.

Nexus 6

[Nousaine]

(John Atkinson) wrote:

>In message >
>Tom Nousaine ) wrote:
(John Atkinson) wrote:
>>> two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the
>>> recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the
>>> spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
>>> amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
>>> perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation
>>> between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its
>>> spuriae.
>>
>> OK I heard {those papers}. So how does that show that any {amplifier}
>> on the market currently available or on your {Recommended Components
>> List}...is "better sounding" than any other with regard to the GedLee
>> Metric?
>
>I thought I had answered that question with the next paragraph in my
>posting:
>
>>> This work is not at the stage where someone could plug measured results
>>> into a spreadsheet and out pops a "good" "moderate" "bad" judgment...
>
>Seems clear enough to me.

I get it. You are hoping to eventually find a number that will vindicate your
RCL Recommendation and Sound Quality rankings of many products on the list that
haven't actually been shown to sound 'different' under bias controlled
conditions.

>
>> Wouldn't it be horrible for enthusiasts to learn from a spec-sheet
>> "number" that their Yamaha integrated amplifier sounds exactly like a
>> 12K high-end set of mono-blocks
>
>Why? If it were true, that would be great news.

It seemed to be pretty crushing to the owner of the Pass under bias controlled
conditions in his reference system.

However, if you examine
>the list of necessary specifications I gave in the posting that started
>this thread, I would have thought it extremely unlikely that an
>inexpensive amplifier would sound the same _under all conditions_ as a
>design where the designer has been able to use considerably greater
>resources.

I think that large companies with considerable resources often devote same to
reducing end-user cost.

IME experience it's extremely unlikely that an expensive amplifier will sound
any different from a less expensive one even under the most revealing of
conditions.

>
>That two amplifiers might be able to produce the same "number" under a
>carefully controlled subset of conditions is hardly a complete
>description of their performance, I would have thought. What _I_ would
>be interested in would be to use something like the Geddes-Lee metric
>to explore a component's performance _envelope_ under a wide range of
>conditions. Audiophiles could thus clearly see what the more expensive
>products had to offer and make up their own minds whether the benefit
>was worth the asking price.
>
>John Atkinson
>Editor, Stereophile

That would be a worthwhile goal. But while current measurements won't describe
performance under ALL conditons I'm guessing that Ged-Lee Metric won't do that
either.

I think masking-weighted measurement is an excellent but it's not going to
reveal anyhting about the acoustical performance of amplifiers that we don't
already know.

The better application would be for characterizing loudspeakers.

[normanstrong]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> (John Atkinson) wrote:
>
> >"normanstrong" > wrote in message
> >news:<lmVlb.3955$mZ5.23026@attbi_s54>...
> >> Certainly more than half of the requirements you placed on your
> >> amplifier design detailed in your first reply to this header
disappear
> >> if the designer knows the characteristics of the source and load
ahead
> >> of time. It is for this reason that I forever wonder at how few
> >> speakers come with their own amplifier--at least in the home
hi-fi
> >> industry.
> >
> >Hi Norm, I believe that the apparent restriction of customer choice
that
> >this represents is a major impediment to successful marketing of an
active
> >speaker. Even if the customer buys exactly the amplifier that the
speaker
> >designer feels works best with his loudspeaker, and would therefore
be
> >the one that could be supplied in an integrated package, it appears
to be
> >important to customers to have the widest amplifier choice
available.
>
> I have a different take on this. An average "high-end" enthusiast
may already
> have a stack of amplifiers or at least a single expensive 2-channel
amplifier
> at his/her disposal. Anybody else has purchased a modrn receiver
with 5
> amplifier channels already built into the chassis.
>
> People just don't see the reason to buy power again. The neo-phytes
don't get
> it. The high-enders never WILL get it; it's too apparent. So the
best way to
> better sounding loudspeakers will remain foreign to the market UNTIL
the
> current generation of computer users (who expect their speakers to
be powered)
> are in the loop.
>
> >
> >Probably only Meridian has made much headway in the audiophile
market
> >selling integrated loudspeaker/amplifier packages.
> >
> >John Atkinson
> >Editor, Stereophile
> >
> >PS: Your letter on the purported advantages of hi-rez audio media
> >appears in the ne (November) issue of Stereophile.
>
> That take is likely a fair statement of the current market. Paradigm
stopped
> offering their Active series which was one of the better performing
speaker
> systems ever to reach the market. Yet few would buy them.

Both of you guys are right. Audiophiles simply want to choose their
own amplifiers, and that's that. Also the practicality of the active
speaker diminishes as the number of speakers in the system increases.
The limit is apparently 2. As long as it's a stereo system, the
active approach is good. Above that it gradually becomes less
desirable. With 5 speakers, a receiver is much more practical.

The subwoofer is an isolated case. They're amplified because they
were introduced to the market as an add-on and the market was already
mature. (Another reason has to do with the fact that the FTC does not
enforce rules for advertising on amplifiers in active speakers. All
the neat lies that used to be the shame of amplifier marketing are
once again available for use.)

The Home-theater-in-a-box is another interesting case, offering the
benefits of active speakers and receivers at the same time. Think of
the possibilities: All 6 power amps are in the subwoofer box, each
one tailored to its speaker. The decoding and preamp functions will
be united with the source components in a single box containing a 12cm
optical drive that will play any disc, an FM-AM tuner, and a couple of
aux inputs. For those who demand absolutely everything, a model also
including a video tuner and hard drive will be available adding
Tivo-like capabilities along with mp3 and AAC music. The optical
drive will be capable of burning CDs or DVDs from the HD.

Such a unit could be on the market right now, but I'm sure the
entertainment industry will think of a way to screw it up before it
arrives.

Norm Strong

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
(John Atkinson) wrote:

> MiNE 109 > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:48:18 GMT, MiNE 109 >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm still reeling from trying to picture the orbit of Cruithne...
> > >
> > > LOL! I told you it was a better name than Jupiter!
> > >
> > > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html
> >
> > Just remember the 'th' is silent!
> >
> > Here's the site with animations of the orbit:
> >
> > http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html
>
> Extraordinary! Looks like something form the world of Terry Pratchett.
> (Next you'll be telling us it's "turtles all the way down.")

Depends on your belief system! or whatever Stephen Jay says...

This is why I like the internet: moons of Jupiter, non-moon orbital
companions, pre-Saxon Brits, etc.

Stephen

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of
> > loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear
> > for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites
> > where they have his number.
>
> As usual, you're lying Middius. Or maybe you're so stupid you actually
> believe this. You've tried to dominate RAO for years and force me off by
> various means. The good news is that you are violently hated on most of
the
> Usenet audio groups, and you don't bother them very much. So life there is
> relatively gentle and sweet for me. I mostly just come here to futiley
check
> for intelligent life, lead newbies away to the promised lands, and feed
the
> animals.
>
> It's ironic Middius that the groups where you don't go are mostly
relatively
> healthy places were on-topic discussions dominate. In contrast RAO, which
> is your own personal turf. is widely despised and hated. Almost as widely
> despised and hated as you! Newbies frequently run away screaming.
> Experienced hands warn people away. You've done a great job with RAO,
> Middius. Your mother should be proud.
>


Oh, the denail!
Oh, the self deception!
Arny, get help, please!




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

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:47:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The most forthcoming of you is Weil, and he still won't say where he
> > >works.
>
> > And we know why *that* is, don't we?
>
> Weil, I believe your answer has always indicated absolute, paralyzing,
> unthinking fear.

...........that a stark raving mad, vindicitve lunatic will try to disrupt
his personal life.





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

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
> > chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.
>
> Show us all how to do it, David "Gratuitous Attack" Weil.
>
>

Duck!!!
There was one right there!




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

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said to ****-for-Brains:

> > > Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of
> > > loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear
> > > for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites
> > > where they have his number.

> > As usual, you're lying Middius.

I guess your body was taken over by a pod when you posted this:

"Let's hear about how you are totally innocent of exposing me to
hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, and which causing me to be
shunned or avoided."
--- A. Krooger, professed paranoid lunatic

> Oh, the denail!
> Oh, the self deception!

Don't forget the paranoia.

> Arny, get help, please!

Arnii can't do that because he can't afford it, and the Kroobitch's
insurance will be canceled if he files another claim.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.
> >
> > Of course, there's this as well:
>
> > "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
> > know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
> > anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
> > to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
> > weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so snowed
> > by him".
>
> Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that
quote:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a99165.3905906%40wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.co m
>
> Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
> you're trying to abuse it.
>
> To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks
for
> showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil. I
> don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more
ago.

This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts.




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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "dave weil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the moment.
> > >
> > > Of course, there's this as well:
> >
> > > "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
> > > know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
> > > anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him
> > > to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is very
> > > weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so
snowed
> > > by him".
> >
> > Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that
> quote:
> >
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a99165.3905906%40wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.co m
> >
> > Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
> > you're trying to abuse it.
> >
> > To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But thanks
> for
> > showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way, Weil.
I
> > don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more
> ago.
>
> This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts.

Depending on the topic, the age of the post may or may not be important. But
nice try at trying to give yourself a pass for more posturing and irrelevant
claims.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
m...
> Arny Krueger ) wrote in message
> >:
> >>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> om
> >> two excellent papers by Earl Geddes and his wife, presented at the
> >> recent AES Convention, show a way forward, by looking at how the
> >> spuriae produced by the "bent" transfer function of a typical
> >> amplifier can be examined using a masking model representing human
> >> perception. Their provisional results show excellent correlation
> >> between the metric for a given amplifier and the audibility of its
> >> spuriae.
> >
> > Geddes' specialty is loudspeaker design and evaluation. Therefore
> > he's concerned with relatively high levels of distortion by the
> > standards of modern audio power amplifiers.
>
> Yes, the two Geddes-Lee AES papers -- Auditory Perception of Nonlinear
> Distortion -- were based on work intended to model loudspeaker
> nonlinearity, but were intended to present the general case.

The general case with modern high-quality amplifiers is inaudible
distortion. The Geddes paper is about audible distortion. Therefore, in
general the Geddes papers are irrelevant to modern high-quality amplifiers
amplifiers.

> From the
> second of the two papers: "While the primary focus of this study is to
> understand the perception of loudspeaker distortion, a wide variety of
> nonlinear transfer functions was applied to yield data that may be
> applicable to a broad array of systems...The intention of this study was
> to sample a broad spectrum of nonlinearities that could represent
> virtually any system, and not be limited to just a loudspeaker, or an
> amplifier."

The word amplifier covers a lot of territory. A small, somewhat obscure part
of that territory includes amplifiers that are designed to produce audible
non linear distortion and other colorations, such as guitar amplifiers and
SETs. It's possible that the Geddes-Lee papers would be of benefit to those
few designers of guitar amplifiers and SETs.

> I thought it clearly appropriate, therefore, to examine the Geddes-Lee
> proposal in the context of amplifier transfer functions.

I notice that your magazine tests loudspeakers and phono cartridges, Mr.
Atkinson. Both are well-known sources of audible distortion. I marvel at
your inability to see the application of the Geddes-Lee papers to this part
of your work. This is especially curious given that the papers are as you
have now admitted, mostly addressed toward speakers.

As I finally got you to admit, the recent Geddes-Lee papers are addressed
toward speakers, and only relevant for equipment that has audible
distortion. I find it curious that you started out characterizing the
Geddes-Lee paper solely in terms of the study of amplifiers.

> If you feel differently, Mr. Krueger, then that is your prerogative, of
course.

That's such an obvious statement I wonder why you feel obliged to make it, I
guess it lends balance to the fact that you tried to obscure the main point
of the recent Geddes-Lee AES papers by only mentioning their application to
amplifiers which is in general an area that they don't apply to.

[Arny Krueger]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" wrote:
>
> nousaine wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their own
> >> amplifiers and application specific EQ.
> >>
> >> I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.
> >>
> >What speaker do you refer to?
>
> I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"

Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers
like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain powered
subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common.

Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product
category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market
composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with
live music.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "dave weil" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Apparently, you are suffering your *own* bit of torment at the
moment.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, there's this as well:
> > >
> > > > "That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I
> > > > know of are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate
> > > > anything with me on RAQHE. That is simply because they would force
him
> > > > to clean up his act and stick to the facts - an area where he is
very
> > > > weak. If you were more knowledgeable you would probably not be so
> snowed
> > > > by him".
> > >
> > > Interesting that you had to reach back more than 5 years to find that
> > quote:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35a99165.3905906%40wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.co m
> > >
> > > Bottom line, the quote is irrelevant because of how old it is, and how
> > > you're trying to abuse it.
> > >
> > > To say it's wildly out of context would be an understatement. But
thanks
> > for
> > > showing your infatuation and obsession with my postings this way,
Weil.
> I
> > > don't take them nearly that seriously, especially from 5 years or more
> > ago.
> >
> > This is noted, for the next time Arny drags up someone elses old posts.
>
> Depending on the topic, the age of the post may or may not be important.
But
> nice try at trying to give yourself a pass for more posturing and
irrelevant
> claims.
>
>


Translated from Krooglish:

If you bting up one of my old posts it is not alright, but if I bring
up one of your old posts it is ok.




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

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Nousaine" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert Morein" wrote:
> >
> > nousaine wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their
own
> > >> amplifiers and application specific EQ.
> > >>
> > >> I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.
> > >>
> > >What speaker do you refer to?
> >
> > I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"
>
> Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers
> like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain
powered
> subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common.
>
> Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
> someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product
> category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market
> composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with
> live music.

The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile applications
is well known.
While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of view,
they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by
appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier.

Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system to
their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger
audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group.

[trotsky]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Robert Morein" wrote:
>>>
>>> nousaine wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their
>>>>
> own
>
>>>>>amplifiers and application specific EQ.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What speaker do you refer to?
>>>
>>>I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"
>>
>>Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers
>>like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain
>
> powered
>
>>subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common.
>>
>>Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
>>someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product
>>category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market
>>composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with
>>live music.
>
>
> The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile applications
> is well known.
> While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of view,
> they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by
> appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier.
>
> Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system to
> their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger
> audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group.



That's a nice try, Bob Morion, but it's bunk. Audiophiles are extremely
critical of the equipment, and studio guys are extremely critical of the
sound on a recording. For them the equipment is a means to an end, and
hence they don't give it the same scrutiny that audiophiles do.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Nousaine" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Robert Morein" wrote:
>>>
>>> nousaine wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with
>>>>> their
> own
>>>>> amplifiers and application specific EQ.

>>>>> I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.

>>>> What speaker do you refer to?

>>> I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"

>> Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to
>> speakers like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps
>> and certain powered subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very
>> common.

>> Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
>> someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this
>> product category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is
>> a market composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled
>> experience with live music.

> The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile
> applications is well known.

The divergence has been closing for a long time. There are lots of consumer
speakers that have the word "Monitor" in their names. Self-powered consumer
speakers are becoming more popular.

> While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of
> view, they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking
> by appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier.

Sure you can optimize sound with powered speakers, you just buy a powered
speaker that suits your preferences. Besides, there are effective means
other than playing "Musical Chairs" with speakers, to get speakers that
provide sound to one's liking. I could mention the e-word but I hate to get
too many people upset.

> Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the
> system to their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a
> much larger audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much
> larger group.

Engineers also express their personal preferences when they chose speakers.
They have a lot more experience than audiophiles with comparing live versus
recorded sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message



>Audiophiles are
> extremely critical of the equipment, and studio guys are extremely
> critical of the sound on a recording.

One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and
that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality.

>For them the equipment is a
> means to an end, and hence they don't give it the same scrutiny that
> audiophiles do.

One differences is that engineers have a lot more at stake when they
audition recordings.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and
>that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality.

But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
concered with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
music. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound
>> quality, and that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound
>> quality.
>
> But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
> concerned with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
music.

This may or may not be true.

>This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
> this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
> sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.

One flaw in this thinking is that both the engineer and the artist listen to
the same recording through the same speakers in the studio.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:38:28 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:13:23 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound
>>> quality, and that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound
>>> quality.
>>
>> But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
>> concerned with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
>music.
>
>This may or may not be true.

No, it *is* true that *often times* the "best reproduction" of music
is at odds with the commercial realities.

>>This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
>> this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
>> sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.
>
>One flaw in this thinking is that both the engineer and the artist listen to
>the same recording through the same speakers in the studio.

But it's not a flaw since they don't always have the same perception
about sound quality. As I pointed out, the engineer has other exterior
concerns that the producer and record company wants him or her to take
care of. Plus, the musician comes to the plate from "behind" the
music, so to speak, while the engineer is "in front" of the music.
Sometimes, the musician gets only a slice of the whole. And sometimes,
they don't even really have final approval either.

No, it's a mistake to equate the very artifical listening environment
of the studio control room with the home environment. What's good for
one is not always good for the other.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:57:04 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:


>But it's not a flaw since they don't always have the same perception
>about sound quality. As I pointed out, the engineer has other exterior
>concerns that the producer and record company wants him or her to take
>care of. Plus, the musician comes to the plate from "behind" the
>music, so to speak, while the engineer is "in front" of the music.
>Sometimes, the musician gets only a slice of the whole. And sometimes,
>they don't even really have final approval either.
>
>No, it's a mistake to equate the very artifical listening environment
>of the studio control room with the home environment. What's good for
>one is not always good for the other.

I should have added that there is one area where Mr. Krueger might be
correct and that would be in mixing for movie surround sound and/or
surround sound live DVD performances. That's because, for a change,
they are actually mixing for the intended home use instead of
intermediary delivery systems such as radio, dance clubs or car audio.

[S888Wheel]

Dave said

>
>But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
>concered with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
>music. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
>this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
>sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

All too often the real underlying preasure is how to get something in the can
by the end of the day.

[Robert Morein]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...
> Dave said
>
> >
> >But not in the same way. The "sound quality" that studio guys are
> >concered with is often times at odds with the "best reproduction" of
> >music. This is because they have more pressing issues, i.e. - how is
> >this going to sound on radio, in the clubs, in the car, etc. And
> >sometimes it's about keeping the artist happy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> All too often the real underlying preasure is how to get something in the
can
> by the end of the day.

Yes, and many complain they are deliberately required to ruin recordings in
the requirement to make the recording sound the loudest.

All good reason to use the most accurate monitors available ;).

[S888Wheel]

>
>Yes, and many complain they are deliberately required to ruin recordings in
>the requirement to make the recording sound the loudest.
>

This is probably the biggest problem in commercial recordings for the past 10
years. The same problem seems to plague the vast majority of reissues as
well.Although it has always been an isue, I think now more so than ever, much
of audiophilia involves the persuit of the best sounding commercial releases of
the music.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>>Audiophiles are
>>extremely critical of the equipment, and studio guys are extremely
>>critical of the sound on a recording.
>
>
> One would hope that audiophiles are extremely critical of sound quality, and
> that studio guys are also extremely critical of sound quality.


One would hope wrong, then.


>>For them the equipment is a
>>means to an end, and hence they don't give it the same scrutiny that
>>audiophiles do.
>
>
> One differences is that engineers have a lot more at stake when they
> audition recordings.


Sure they do, Arny. There are objective ways of measuring their skills,
right?

[Nousaine]

"Robert Morein"
wrote:


>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Nousaine" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Robert Morein" wrote:
>> >
>> > nousaine wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with their
>own
>> > >> amplifiers and application specific EQ.
>> > >>
>> > >> I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.
>> > >>
>> > >What speaker do you refer to?
>> >
>> > I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"
>>
>> Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to speakers
>> like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain
>powered
>> subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common.
>>
>> Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
>> someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this product
>> category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market
>> composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience with
>> live music.
>
>The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile applications
>is well known.
>While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of view,
>they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by
>appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier.
>
>Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system to
>their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger
>audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group.

Actually people don't modify tonality of loudspeakers by using nominally
competent amplifiers. However the CAN improve tonality by using
application-equalization specific amplifiers in powered speaker systems.

[Robert Morein]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein"
> wrote:
>
>
> >"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> "Nousaine" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "Robert Morein" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > nousaine wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Actually the best-performing speaker I've tested DO come with
their
> >own
> >> > >> amplifiers and application specific EQ.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I wonder what Mr Atkinson's experience may be in this regard.
> >> > >>
> >> > >What speaker do you refer to?
> >> >
> >> > I meant to use the plural "best-performing speakerS"
> >>
> >> Just guessing here, but I suspect that Nousaine is referring to
speakers
> >> like the Paradigm Monitors that have built-in power amps and certain
> >powered
> >> subwoofers. Self-powered subwoofers are very common.
> >>
> >> Self-powered speakers are very common in audio production studios. If
> >> someone told me that more than half of all current sales in this
product
> >> category were self-powered, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a market
> >> composed of very critical listeners that have unparalleled experience
with
> >> live music.
> >
> >The divergence of requirement of studio monitors vs. audiophile
applications
> >is well known.
> >While self powered speakers are optimal from the engineering point of
view,
> >they do not allow the user to optimize the sound to his liking by
> >appropriate combination of speaker and amplifier.
> >
> >Audiophiles have justifiable desire to modify the tonality of the system
to
> >their liking, while audio engineers have an obligation to a much larger
> >audience to produce mixes which are acceptable to a much larger group.
>
> Actually people don't modify tonality of loudspeakers by using nominally
> competent amplifiers. However the CAN improve tonality by using
> application-equalization specific amplifiers in powered speaker systems.

I'm a singular instance of "actually people".
I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound of my
speakers.
Currently, I'm running the following in my main listening room:
Acoustat TNT-200 with KEF Reference III,
Bridged Hafler XL-280's to run NEAR 50ME and Polk LS15.
I found the KEF Reference III's to be too dull with the Haflers, and
switched them over to the Acoustat.
The Acoustat had been powering Acoustat 2+2's in my office, but the sound
was not pleasing. I tried XL280's, but ultimately chose a Parasound
HCA2200ii.
The Polk LS15s are a new acquisition, and they, too, seem a little flat, so
I'll try hooking them up to the TNT-200.
The NEAR 50ME's were at one time powered by the TNT-200, but there was too
much sizzle; hence the switch to the TNT-200.

All of these choices are reversible; I have extras of each amplifier, nor am
I motivated to sell any, so my choices are not motivated by economic
concerns or convenience. I make whatever connections I want, depending upon
what I believe I hear.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound of my speakers.

Are you sure you don't use them to modify your expectations?

> Acoustat TNT-200 with KEF Reference III,
> Bridged Hafler XL-280's to run NEAR 50ME and Polk LS15.
> Parasound HCA2200ii

Do you have a permit to own three (or is it six?) overpriced and fully
functional amplifiers?

> I have extras of each amplifier

Clearly you don't know the value of money. Nousiane could buy four
Brystons with 200-year warranties with the money you spent on your 22
cheesy amplifiers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> I'm a singular instance of "actually people".

Robert Morein certifies himself as having far better ears than any other
living human. That's why he does not need to educate himself by visiting
www.pcabx.com. He already knows in his mind that he can get a perfect score
on every listening test there. Why waste time actually listening?

> I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound
> of my speakers.

It's an interesting ritual. The person afflicted with amplifier speaker
adjustment dementia hooks up various amplifiers to his speakers and
perceives that he has improved the sound quality.

He hooks up amplifier "B", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "A"

He hooks up amplifier "C", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "B".

He hooks up amplifier "D", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "C".

He hooks up amplifier "A", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "D".

He hooks up amplifier "B", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "A"

He hooks up amplifier "C", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "B".

He hooks up amplifier "D", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "C".

He hooks up amplifier "A", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "D".

He hooks up amplifier "B", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "A"

He hooks up amplifier "C", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "B".

He hooks up amplifier "D", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "C".

He hooks up amplifier "A", he perceives that the sound quality improves over
that of amplifier "D".

Now quite amazingly, the sound quality is 12 times better than it was to
start with!

Pretty amazing, eh?

Makes guys like Nousaine and I, who try to adjust our equalizers to get
better sound quality look pretty foolish, eh?

Makes all those recording engineers, who try to adjust their equalizers to
get better sound quality look pretty foolish, as well!

> Currently, I'm running the following in my main listening room:
> Acoustat TNT-200 with KEF Reference III,
> Bridged Hafler XL-280's to run NEAR 50ME and Polk LS15.
> I found the KEF Reference III's to be too dull with the Haflers, and
> switched them over to the Acoustat.
> The Acoustat had been powering Acoustat 2+2's in my office, but the
> sound was not pleasing. I tried XL280's, but ultimately chose a
> Parasound HCA2200ii.
> The Polk LS15s are a new acquisition, and they, too, seem a little
> flat, so I'll try hooking them up to the TNT-200.
> The NEAR 50ME's were at one time powered by the TNT-200, but there
> was too much sizzle; hence the switch to the TNT-200.

Just replace Acoustat TNT-200 with Amplifier "A" and so on.

> All of these choices are reversible; I have extras of each amplifier,
> nor am I motivated to sell any, so my choices are not motivated by
> economic concerns or convenience. I make whatever connections I want,
> depending upon what I believe I hear.

This is the moral equivalent of one of those TV evangelist healing services,
except that through the miracles of science, Bob has dispensed with the TV
evangelist and the TV.

I've VERY impressed. Good Job, Bob!

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Makes guys like Nousaine and I, who try to adjust our equalizers to get
> better sound quality look pretty foolish, eh?
>

Clueless, as usual.




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

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound of
my speakers.
>
> Are you sure you don't use them to modify your expectations?
>
> > Acoustat TNT-200 with KEF Reference III,
> > Bridged Hafler XL-280's to run NEAR 50ME and Polk LS15.
> > Parasound HCA2200ii
>
> Do you have a permit to own three (or is it six?) overpriced and fully
> functional amplifiers?
>
> > I have extras of each amplifier
>
> Clearly you don't know the value of money. Nousiane could buy four
> Brystons with 200-year warranties with the money you spent on your 22
> cheesy amplifiers.
>
George, your response surprises me. Are you serious? Do you actually believe
that Bryston is defacto apriori sonically superior?
I think you're pulling my chain.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I'm a singular instance of "actually people".
>
> Robert Morein certifies himself as having far better ears than any other
> living human. That's why he does not need to educate himself by visiting
> www.pcabx.com. He already knows in his mind that he can get a perfect
score
> on every listening test there. Why waste time actually listening?
>
I choose my amps by listening.

> > I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound
> > of my speakers.
>
[snip]
>
> This is the moral equivalent of one of those TV evangelist healing
services,
> except that through the miracles of science, Bob has dispensed with the TV
> evangelist and the TV.
>
> I've VERY impressed. Good Job, Bob!
>
It's no great achievement.
These particular amplifiers sound quite different from each other.
I do not by that imply that all amplifiers are distinctly different.

I recommend the procedure to any audiophile.

[Robert Morein]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Makes guys like Nousaine and I, who try to adjust our equalizers to get
> > better sound quality look pretty foolish, eh?
> >
>
> Clueless, as usual.
>
Quite clueless.
I have a bunch of parametric equalizers, but the effects which can be
obtained are not similar to the signatures of amplifiers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Robert Morein said:
>>
>>> I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound of
my speakers.

>> Are you sure you don't use them to modify your expectations?
>>
>>> Acoustat TNT-200 with KEF Reference III,
>>> Bridged Hafler XL-280's to run NEAR 50ME and Polk LS15.
>>> Parasound HCA2200ii

>> Do you have a permit to own three (or is it six?) overpriced and
>> fully functional amplifiers?

>>> I have extras of each amplifier

>> Clearly you don't know the value of money. Nousiane could buy four
>> Brystons with 200-year warranties with the money you spent on your 22
>> cheesy amplifiers.

> George, your response surprises me. Are you serious?

The comment about 22 amplifiers 200 year warrantees didn't tip you off?

> Do you actually believe that Bryston is defacto apriori sonically
superior?

Funny to see you acting so paranoid, Bob. Why would you care what a troll
like Middius thought about amplifiers?

> I think you're pulling my chain.

Dooooh. Only a person naive enough to ask whether Middius was serious about
audio could have a second's doubt about that!

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I'm a singular instance of "actually people".
>>
>> Robert Morein certifies himself as having far better ears than any
>> other living human. That's why he does not need to educate himself
>> by visiting www.pcabx.com. He already knows in his mind that he can
>> get a perfect score on every listening test there. Why waste time
>> actually listening?

> I choose my amps by listening.

Irrelevant in this context.

>>> I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound
>>> of my speakers.
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> This is the moral equivalent of one of those TV evangelist healing
>> services, except that through the miracles of science, Bob has
>> dispensed with the TV evangelist and the TV.

>> I've VERY impressed. Good Job, Bob!

> It's no great achievement.

To say the least. It's an anti-achievement.

> These particular amplifiers sound quite different from each other.

I'm sure that they look different and have different circuit diagrams.

> I do not by that imply that all amplifiers are distinctly different.

Some are, some aren't.

> I recommend the procedure to any audiophile.

Would that be your avoidance of blind listening tests that you recommend to
all audiophiles, Bob?

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Makes guys like Nousaine and I, who try to adjust our equalizers to
>>> get better sound quality look pretty foolish, eh?
>>>
>>
>> Clueless, as usual.
>>
> Quite clueless.
> I have a bunch of parametric equalizers, but the effects which can be
> obtained are not similar to the signatures of amplifiers.

Yes, the effects of adjustements to equalizers can be quite clearly audible
which is clearly different from what you get when you play musical chairs
with reasonably good amplifiers.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm a singular instance of "actually people".
> >>
> >> Robert Morein certifies himself as having far better ears than any
> >> other living human. That's why he does not need to educate himself
> >> by visiting www.pcabx.com. He already knows in his mind that he can
> >> get a perfect score on every listening test there. Why waste time
> >> actually listening?
>
> > I choose my amps by listening.
>
> Irrelevant in this context.
>
> >>> I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound
> >>> of my speakers.
> >>
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> This is the moral equivalent of one of those TV evangelist healing
> >> services, except that through the miracles of science, Bob has
> >> dispensed with the TV evangelist and the TV.
>
> >> I've VERY impressed. Good Job, Bob!
>
> > It's no great achievement.
>
> To say the least. It's an anti-achievement.
>
> > These particular amplifiers sound quite different from each other.
>
> I'm sure that they look different and have different circuit diagrams.
>
> > I do not by that imply that all amplifiers are distinctly different.
>
> Some are, some aren't.
>
> > I recommend the procedure to any audiophile.
>
> Would that be your avoidance of blind listening tests that you recommend
to
> all audiophiles, Bob?
>
I don't avoid that anyone avoid blind listening tests.
However, when you've got two amps, I suggest switching them to see which one
is preferred.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>> Makes guys like Nousaine and I, who try to adjust our equalizers to
> >>> get better sound quality look pretty foolish, eh?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Clueless, as usual.
> >>
> > Quite clueless.
> > I have a bunch of parametric equalizers, but the effects which can be
> > obtained are not similar to the signatures of amplifiers.
>
> Yes, the effects of adjustements to equalizers can be quite clearly
audible
> which is clearly different from what you get when you play musical chairs
> with reasonably good amplifiers.
>
The effects of adustment to equalizers can be quite audible.
My XL-280 and Acoustat TNT-200 sound as markedly different as many speakers.
This does not appear to be a property of the particular sample, since I have
three TNT-200 amps, and something like six XL-280's, and I've never noticed
a difference between samples of the same model.
The Parasound HCA-2200ii is similar to the TNT-200, but clearly preferable
with my Acoustat 2+2's.
My XL-600 amps, of which I have two, do not sound distinguishably different
from my XL-280's.
My Hafler P3000 is also distinguisable from the others, but not markedly so.


These amplifiers are distinguished by membership in three groups of circuit
topology:
1. zero output gain, source-follower MOSFET: XL-280, XL-600
2. grounded gate, three-gain stage MOSFET, trademarked Transnova topology:
TNT-200, TNT-120, P3000
3. four gain stage, mosfet driver, bipolar output: HCA-2200ii

The most marked difference in sound signature is between group one and the
other groups.

I advise anyone with the chance to sample multiple amplifiers to do so. In
my case, I have a dear friend who made this possible before I accumulated my
collection of amplifiers. I had the opportunity to listen to quite a few
others, before I selected these for permanent accumulation.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm a singular instance of "actually people".
> >>
> >> Robert Morein certifies himself as having far better ears than any
> >> other living human. That's why he does not need to educate himself
> >> by visiting www.pcabx.com. He already knows in his mind that he can
> >> get a perfect score on every listening test there. Why waste time
> >> actually listening?
>
> > I choose my amps by listening.
>
[snip]
>
>
I would also mention that I have heard several Bryston amplifiers from the
80's and found them muddy and unrevealing.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > > I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound of
> my speakers.
> >
> > Are you sure you don't use them to modify your expectations?
> >
> > > Acoustat TNT-200 with KEF Reference III,
> > > Bridged Hafler XL-280's to run NEAR 50ME and Polk LS15.
> > > Parasound HCA2200ii
> >
> > Do you have a permit to own three (or is it six?) overpriced and fully
> > functional amplifiers?
> >
> > > I have extras of each amplifier
> >
> > Clearly you don't know the value of money. Nousiane could buy four
> > Brystons with 200-year warranties with the money you spent on your 22
> > cheesy amplifiers.
> >
> George, your response surprises me. Are you serious? Do you actually believe
> that Bryston is defacto apriori sonically superior?
> I think you're pulling my chain.

Not your chain, somebody else's. Do you like pink noise? Do you get
lost in a lot of bass?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Robert Morein said:
> >
> > > I have a large stable of amplifiers which I use to modify the sound of
> my speakers.
> >
> > Are you sure you don't use them to modify your expectations?
> >
> > > Acoustat TNT-200 with KEF Reference III,
> > > Bridged Hafler XL-280's to run NEAR 50ME and Polk LS15.
> > > Parasound HCA2200ii
> >
> > Do you have a permit to own three (or is it six?) overpriced and fully
> > functional amplifiers?
> >
> > > I have extras of each amplifier
> >
> > Clearly you don't know the value of money. Nousiane could buy four
> > Brystons with 200-year warranties with the money you spent on your 22
> > cheesy amplifiers.
> >
> George, your response surprises me. Are you serious? Do you actually
believe
> that Bryston is defacto apriori sonically superior?
> I think you're pulling my chain.
>


Yank




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

[trotsky]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

>>
>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm a singular instance of "actually people".
>>>>
>>>>Robert Morein certifies himself as having far better ears than any
>>>>other living human. That's why he does not need to educate himself
>>>>by visiting www.pcabx.com. He already knows in his mind that he can
>>>>get a perfect score on every listening test there. Why waste time
>>>>actually listening?
>>>
>>>I choose my amps by listening.
>>
> [snip]
>
>>
> I would also mention that I have heard several Bryston amplifiers from the
> 80's and found them muddy and unrevealing.


Were your screenplays ever described in a similar fashion?

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> I don't avoid that anyone avoid blind listening tests.

> However, when you've got two amps, I suggest switching them to see
> which one is preferred.

Or, if you have a PC with a good sound card and monitoring system, you can
do power-amp related DBTs by downloading files from
http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . You can definitely hear
differences in power amps using files from these pages. If you can't you
probably need to upgrade your listening environment or have your ears
checked.

Three Bryston amps and three competitive amps are listed there for people's
listening pleasure. Power amp tests are tough, so I recommend that people
who are not familiar with the PCABX process start with the home page at
http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm .

[Bob-Stanton]

(John Atkinson) wrote in message >...
> (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> >...
> > Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
> > design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
> > audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
> > interesting and challenging concepts.
>
> I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
> that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
> where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
> voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
> and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
> contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
> its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
> hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
> over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
>
> Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
> amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
> missing something :-)
>

I agree that designing a state of the art audio amplifier is not
trivial, for the reasons you stated above.

Designing an RF amplifier is more challenging than designing a audio
power amplifier. For example, a typical CATV RF amplifier would be 40
MHz - 1 GHz, and have 18 to 33 dB gain. Its' basic layout is very
similar to an audio power amplifier. The CATV amp will have: a couple
push-pull stages of bipolar transistors, a requirement for flat
response, and for very low second and third order distortion.

I don't think you would be suprised to hear that getting an amplifier
flat out to 1 GHz is more difficult than get an amplifier flat out to
20 kHz. In addition, CATV amplifiers are cascaded, (sometimes up to 50
amps in cascade). The sum total of the flatness of the cascade is
typically better than 2 dB. That works out to 1/25 dB flatness per
amplifier.

The visability of noise and distortion on video, are roughly the same
as the audibilty of noise and distortion for audio. But because noise
and distortion add in a cascade, the distortion performance of each
individual CATV amplifier must be better than that required for audio
amplifiers.

Stability of amplifiers that work up to a 1 GHz is more difficult to
achieve than for amplifiers that work only up to 20 KHz. Although RF
amps typically work into a 75 Ohm loads, they must be designed to be
stable into any load from a short circuit, to a complete open.

The list differences could go on, but if you pick up a textbook on
audio design, and one on RF design, you will see that the RF design is
or complex.

Bob Stanton

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I don't avoid that anyone avoid blind listening tests.
>
> > However, when you've got two amps, I suggest switching them to see
> > which one is preferred.
>
> Or, if you have a PC with a good sound card and monitoring system, you can
> do power-amp related DBTs by downloading files from
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . You can definitely
hear
> differences in power amps using files from these pages. If you can't you
> probably need to upgrade your listening environment or have your ears
> checked.
>
Your results are of interest, but the combination of a particular amplifier
with a particular speaker are what concern the audiophile.
Nevetheless, I can't argue against the experience you provide, even though
it's useless for the purpose of choosing the combination.

> Three Bryston amps and three competitive amps are listed there for
people's
> listening pleasure. Power amp tests are tough, so I recommend that people
> who are not familiar with the PCABX process start with the home page at
> http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm .
>
An interesting education, which should force the conclusion that one should
test the intended amplifier/speaker combination together.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I don't avoid that anyone avoid blind listening tests.
>>
>>> However, when you've got two amps, I suggest switching them to see
>>> which one is preferred.

>> Or, if you have a PC with a good sound card and monitoring system,
>> you can do power-amp related DBTs by downloading files from
>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . You can
>> definitely hear differences in power amps using files from these
>> pages. If you can't you probably need to upgrade your listening
>> environment or have your ears checked.

> Your results are of interest, but the combination of a particular
> amplifier with a particular speaker are what concern the audiophile.

There are no *results* posted at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . The results are formed
in people's minds after they listen to and carefully compare the audio
files.

> Nevetheless, I can't argue against the experience you provide, even
> though it's useless for the purpose of choosing the combination.

The tragic flaw in trying to match amplifiers and speakers is that the
audible flaws in speakers and rooms are like a California wild fire, and the
audible variations among good amplifiers are like garden hoses in
comparison. If you want speaker-sized audible differences you need some kind
of equalizer, not a merry-go-round full of power amps.

>> Three Bryston amps and three competitive amps are listed there for
>> people's listening pleasure. Power amp tests are tough, so I
>> recommend that people who are not familiar with the PCABX process
>> start with the home page at http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm .

> An interesting education, which should force the conclusion that one
> should test the intended amplifier/speaker combination together.

Just guessing here Bob, but I'll guess you ain't downloaded and listened to
squat from http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm .

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> I don't avoid that anyone avoid blind listening tests.
> >>
> >>> However, when you've got two amps, I suggest switching them to see
> >>> which one is preferred.
>
> >> Or, if you have a PC with a good sound card and monitoring system,
> >> you can do power-amp related DBTs by downloading files from
> >> http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . You can
> >> definitely hear differences in power amps using files from these
> >> pages. If you can't you probably need to upgrade your listening
> >> environment or have your ears checked.
>
> > Your results are of interest, but the combination of a particular
> > amplifier with a particular speaker are what concern the audiophile.
>
> There are no *results* posted at
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . The results are formed
> in people's minds after they listen to and carefully compare the audio
> files.
>
> > Nevetheless, I can't argue against the experience you provide, even
> > though it's useless for the purpose of choosing the combination.
>
> The tragic flaw in trying to match amplifiers and speakers is that the
> audible flaws in speakers and rooms are like a California wild fire, and
the
> audible variations among good amplifiers are like garden hoses in
> comparison. If you want speaker-sized audible differences you need some
kind
> of equalizer, not a merry-go-round full of power amps.
>
> >> Three Bryston amps and three competitive amps are listed there for
> >> people's listening pleasure. Power amp tests are tough, so I
> >> recommend that people who are not familiar with the PCABX process
> >> start with the home page at http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm .
>
> > An interesting education, which should force the conclusion that one
> > should test the intended amplifier/speaker combination together.
>
> Just guessing here Bob, but I'll guess you ain't downloaded and listened
to
> squat from http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm .
>
The website has no use to me. A large variety of equipment becomes available
to me either as a free loan or at very low prices. Since I seek only to
optimize my own personal experience, your recorded samples are useless.

Nevertheless, since most audiophiles do not have access to the wide range of
equipment available to me, I suggest they listen to Arny's samples, and then
forget about them.

[George M. Middius]

Gregipus Slanderus libeled:

> Were your screenplays ever described in a similar fashion?

Out of bounds! Out of bounds!

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't avoid that anyone avoid blind listening tests.
>>>>
>>>>> However, when you've got two amps, I suggest switching them to see
>>>>> which one is preferred.
>>
>>>> Or, if you have a PC with a good sound card and monitoring system,
>>>> you can do power-amp related DBTs by downloading files from
>>>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . You can
>>>> definitely hear differences in power amps using files from these
>>>> pages. If you can't you probably need to upgrade your listening
>>>> environment or have your ears checked.
>>
>>> Your results are of interest, but the combination of a particular
>>> amplifier with a particular speaker are what concern the audiophile.
>>
>> There are no *results* posted at
>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm . The results are
>> formed in people's minds after they listen to and carefully compare
>> the audio files.
>>
>>> Nevertheless, I can't argue against the experience you provide, even
>>> though it's useless for the purpose of choosing the combination.
>>
>> The tragic flaw in trying to match amplifiers and speakers is that
>> the audible flaws in speakers and rooms are like a California wild
>> fire, and the audible variations among good amplifiers are like
>> garden hoses in comparison. If you want speaker-sized audible
>> differences you need some kind of equalizer, not a merry-go-round
>> full of power amps.

>>>> Three Bryston amps and three competitive amps are listed there for
>>>> people's listening pleasure. Power amp tests are tough, so I
>>>> recommend that people who are not familiar with the PCABX process
>>>> start with the home page at http://www.pcabx.com/index.htm .

>>> An interesting education, which should force the conclusion that one
>>> should test the intended amplifier/speaker combination together.

>> Just guessing here Bob, but I'll guess you ain't downloaded and
>> listened to
>> squat from http://www.pcabx.com/product/amplifiers/index.htm .

> The website has no use to me. A large variety of equipment becomes
> available to me either as a free loan or at very low prices. Since I
> seek only to optimize my own personal experience, your recorded
> samples are useless.

Transparent attempt to deceptively avoid the level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled test issue.

> Nevertheless, since most audiophiles do not have access to the wide
> range of equipment available to me, I suggest they listen to Arny's
> samples, and then forget about them.

Bob, it's quite clear that you're afraid of finding out that you've got
flesh-and-blood ears like the rest of us.

But thanks for confirming my speculation about your continued desire to
remain unnecessarily ignorant.

A lot of old hands have benefited from the PCABX experience, but there are a
lot of old dinosaurs who are still resisting it.

[Robert Morein]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
om...
> (John Atkinson) wrote in message
>...
> > (Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
> > >...
> > > Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
> > > design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
> > > audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
> > > interesting and challenging concepts.
> >
> > I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
> > that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
> > where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
> > voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
> > and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
> > contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
> > its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
> > components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
> > hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
> > over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.
> >
> > Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
> > amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
> > missing something :-)
> >
>
> I agree that designing a state of the art audio amplifier is not
> trivial, for the reasons you stated above.
>
> Designing an RF amplifier is more challenging than designing a audio
> power amplifier. For example, a typical CATV RF amplifier would be 40
> MHz - 1 GHz, and have 18 to 33 dB gain. Its' basic layout is very
> similar to an audio power amplifier. The CATV amp will have: a couple
> push-pull stages of bipolar transistors, a requirement for flat
> response, and for very low second and third order distortion.
>
[snip]
I did some Google reading, and it appears that commercial CATV amplifier is
a very demanding case. However, design of a CATV amplifier has different
problems; it is not simply the case that it is more complex.
Were it not for the cascade requirement, one could make the case that the
audio amplifier is a greater challenge. In fact, I am not aware of any audio
amplifier ever produced that could meet the "analogous" CATV specs.
For an uncascaded RF amplifier, some characteristics of the problem are
relaxed compared to the audio amp.
Since the RF amplifier is not baseband, distortion in the signal does not
appear directly in the modulated signal. Even with simple class AB designs,
very high power output can be obtained with a small component count, since
the distortion products are broadband and not concentrated around the
carrier. By contrast, since the audio amplifier is a baseband instrument,
the distortion products are largely concentrated in the passband.

CATV amplifiers operate into a controlled impedance. The requirement that
they must survive a short is not equivalent to the challenge which audio
amplifiers encounter, where the load is an electrodynamic mechanical system
that provides a load to the system which is a function of frequency, and,
when accounting for nonlinear effects, amplitude and mechanical state.

If an audio amplifier were required to meet a spec with 50 of them in
cascade, we would see much more of the Halcro level of engineering.

[S888Wheel]

Bob said

>
>> I choose my amps by listening.

Arny said

>
>Irrelevant in this context.
>

That just about says it all.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

> Bob said
>
>>
>>> I choose my amps by listening.
>
> Arny said
>
>>
>> Irrelevant in this context.
>>
>
> That just about says it all.

In this case, it's yet another example of sockpuppet wheel's ignorance of
the importance of context.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
> > Bob said
> >
> >>
> >>> I choose my amps by listening.
> >
> > Arny said
> >
> >>
> >> Irrelevant in this context.
> >>
> >
> > That just about says it all.
>
> In this case, it's yet another example of sockpuppet wheel's ignorance of
> the importance of context.

Like when you characterized one of my simple statements as whining. That
lack of context?
Incorrigible hypocrite.

ScottW

[S888Wheel]

>> Bob said
>>
>>>
>>>> I choose my amps by listening.
>>

>
>> Arny said
>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevant in this context.
>>>

I said

>
>> That just about says it all.

Arny said

>
>In this case, it's yet another example of sockpuppet wheel's ignorance of
>the importance of context.
>

Nope. Just me finding a specific exchange that serindipidously symbolizes the
big picture. You just didn't get it.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:vJcnb.43010$gi2.790@fed1read01
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Bob said
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I choose my amps by listening.
>>>
>>> Arny said
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant in this context.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That just about says it all.
>>
>> In this case, it's yet another example of sockpuppet wheel's
>> ignorance of the importance of context.
>
> Like when you characterized one of my simple statements as whining.

Hey, it was simple whining.

> That lack of context?

Where's your proof, Scott?

> Incorrigible hypocrite.

Whatever.

> ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "S888Wheel" > wrote in message
>
> > Bob said
> >
> >>
> >>> I choose my amps by listening.
> >
> > Arny said
> >
> >>
> >> Irrelevant in this context.
> >>
> >
> > That just about says it all.
>
> In this case, it's yet another example of sockpuppet wheel's ignorance of
> the importance of context.
>
There's no distortion. It's a good summary.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> I did some Google reading, and it appears that commercial CATV amplifier is
> a very demanding case. However, design of a CATV amplifier has different
> problems; it is not simply the case that it is more complex.
> Were it not for the cascade requirement, one could make the case that the
> audio amplifier is a greater challenge. In fact, I am not aware of any audio
> amplifier ever produced that could meet the "analogous" CATV specs.
> For an uncascaded RF amplifier, some characteristics of the problem are
> relaxed compared to the audio amp.

That's right, they have a different set of problems. There is a hidden
complexity in RF circuits. A componet at audio frequencies is simple
single impedance. At RF a resistor is a network of three componets
(resistance, lead inductance, body capacitance). All these

[Bob-Stanton]

(Bob-Stanton) wrote in message >...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I did some Google reading, and it appears that commercial CATV amplifier is
> > a very demanding case. However, design of a CATV amplifier has different
> > problems; it is not simply the case that it is more complex.
> > Were it not for the cascade requirement, one could make the case that the
> > audio amplifier is a greater challenge. In fact, I am not aware of any audio
> > amplifier ever produced that could meet the "analogous" CATV specs.
> > For an uncascaded RF amplifier, some characteristics of the problem are
> > relaxed compared to the audio amp.
>
> That's right, they have a different set of problems. There is a hidden
> complexity in RF circuits. A componet at audio frequencies is simple
> single impedance. At RF a resistor is a network of three componets
> (resistance, lead inductance, body capacitance). All these....

parasitic reactances make the resistor a small, two terminal network,
whos impedance changes with frequency.

A 100 pf capacitor, with 0.5 inch leads, becomes an inductor above 200
MHz.

Fields couple RF stages together and give strange unpredictable
results. There is more complexity in an RF design than is apparent
from the schemetic.

Bob Stanton

[Sander deWaal]

(Bob-Stanton) said:
>
>A 100 pf capacitor, with 0.5 inch leads, becomes an inductor above 200
>MHz.
>
>Fields couple RF stages together and give strange unpredictable
>results. There is more complexity in an RF design than is apparent
>from the schemetic.

In my opinion, the same goes for audio.
RFI is a much bigger problem than most people think.
Have you ever tried to keep an oscilloscope's probe in the air in
mid-city?
I've seen audio amplifiers producing distortions and even Dc shifts
due to a cellular phone in the vicinity.
that's easily measured, but not so easily cured.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

[Bob-Stanton]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> CATV amplifiers operate into a controlled impedance. The requirement that
> they must survive a short is not equivalent to the challenge which audio
> amplifiers encounter, where the load is an electrodynamic mechanical system
> that provides a load to the system which is a function of frequency, and,
> when accounting for nonlinear effects, amplitude and mechanical state.
>

Yes, a speaker systems provide a load that is a complex impedance, and
one that can change slightly due to nonlinear effects.

The RF amplifer can see a greater load variation. It must of stable
with an accidental low impedance (short) located anywhere along the
transmission line. RF amps are typically tested by sliding a low
impedance (about 1 Ohm) along a sloted line, on the output of the
amplifier. Here is the impedance variation the RF amplifier sees as
the resistor is moved along the sloted line:

Wavelengths Impedance

0.025 1.0 +j 12
0.050 1.1 +j 25
0.075 1.2 +j 38
0.100 1.5 +j 55
0.125 2.0 +j 75
0.150 2.9 +j 103
0.175 4.9 +j 147
0.200 10.5 +j 230
0.225 40.6 +j 470
0.250 5625.0 +j 0.00
0.275 40.6 -j 470
0.300 10.5 -j 230
0.325 4.9 -j 147
0.350 2.9 -j 103
0.375 2.0 -j 75
0.400 1.5 -j 55
0.425 1.2 -j 38
0.450 1.1 -j 25
0.475 1.0 -j 12
0.500 1.0 -j 0.00


This variation of impedance (going from short, to inductive, to open,
to capacitive) is much greater than an audio amplifier would ever see
from and electrodynamic mechanical nonlinear system.

Bob Stanton

[Bob-Stanton]

Sander deWaal > wrote in message >...
> (Bob-Stanton) said:
> >
> >A 100 pf capacitor, with 0.5 inch leads, becomes an inductor above 200
> >MHz.
> >
> >Fields couple RF stages together and give strange unpredictable
> >results. There is more complexity in an RF design than is apparent
> >from the schemetic.
>
> In my opinion, the same goes for audio.
> RFI is a much bigger problem than most people think.
> Have you ever tried to keep an oscilloscope's probe in the air in
> mid-city?
> I've seen audio amplifiers producing distortions and even Dc shifts
> due to a cellular phone in the vicinity.
> that's easily measured, but not so easily cured.

Yes, I once worked 2 miles from the Empire State building. The RFI
strength was 1,000,000 uV per meter, for each of seven channels. We
had to get used to seeing sync pulses riding across the scope traces.

I once a had preamp with 'hum' problem. No matter how well I
redesigned the power supply the hum was always their. Finally I went
out an got some batterys and powered the preamp from pure DC. Still
got the hum! That was the clue. It wasn't hum, it was recified video
sync pulses. They sounded like 60 cps hum.
(P.S. It was 60 cps, (not 60 Hz) back then.) :-)

Bob Stanton

It was easily cured by puting RFI filters on the AC lines and on the
phono input lines.

Bob Stanton

[Sander deWaal]

(Bob-Stanton) said:
>
>I once a had preamp with 'hum' problem. No matter how well I
>redesigned the power supply the hum was always their. Finally I went
>out an got some batterys and powered the preamp from pure DC. Still
>got the hum! That was the clue. It wasn't hum, it was recified video
>sync pulses. They sounded like 60 cps hum.
>(P.S. It was 60 cps, (not 60 Hz) back then.) :-)

Geez Bob, you're from the Ampex era? :-)

>It was easily cured by puting RFI filters on the AC lines and on the
>phono input lines.

Ah yes, but this "solution" poses another problem.
We have the same thing going on over here in Europe, first with the
German TÜV regulations, and nowadays with the CE EMC regulations.
Literally EVERY manufacturer puts some ceramic capacitors over the in-
and outputs, thereby trading sound quality for EMC immunity.
There are better ways to do this, however.
Using polystyrene caps and ferrite beads for instance.
Also, it is my experience that tube electronics are far more immune to
EMC problems than solid state electronics.
One can also design on inherent immunity for high frequency rubble,
even with solid state stuff, but almost no one does so.

BTW, I'm curious as to how the video sync pulses came into the
amplifier circuit.
Was it just strong radiation of harmonics and detection by the
amplifier, or was it pure superimposition on the supply lines?

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

[The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:22:36 +0100, Sander deWaal
> wrote:

>BTW, I'm curious as to how the video sync pulses came into the
>amplifier circuit.
>Was it just strong radiation of harmonics and detection by the
>amplifier, or was it pure superimposition on the supply lines?

Hey Sander, nice to see you back! How have you been?

--
The Devil

[Sander deWaal]

The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra > said:

>Hey Sander, nice to see you back! How have you been?

Well, a lot has happened, but I'm doing much better than 2 years ago.
A story too long to tell here, but feel free to drop me a personal
note, the e-mail return address is valid.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

[Bob-Stanton]

Sander deWaal > wrote in message

> BTW, I'm curious as to how the video sync pulses came into the
> amplifier circuit.
> Was it just strong radiation of harmonics and detection by the
> amplifier, or was it pure superimposition on the supply lines?

The RFI came in the phono input. The turntable leads acted as an antenna.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> Since the RF amplifier is not baseband, distortion in the signal does not
> appear directly in the modulated signal.

Interference beats do appear on the video (on the TV screen). If one
takes a signal generator and inserts an interfering signal (sinewave)
on an RF line, it will cause wavey lines to appear on video.

The the threshold of visibility is -60 dB. In audio terms, that would
be 0.01% distortion. The threshold of interference visibility for
video, seems to be about the same as the threshold of distortion
audibility for audio.


> Even with simple class AB designs,
> very high power output can be obtained with a small component count, since
> the distortion products are broadband and not concentrated around the
> carrier. By contrast, since the audio amplifier is a baseband instrument,
> the distortion products are largely concentrated in the passband.
>

Audio amplifiers and CATV amplifiers are both broadband products. They
both face the same distortion challenges. A RF amplifier tested with
a signal of two sinewaves, say at 400 MHz and 500 MHz, will generate
exactly the same kind of second order and third order products as an
audio amplifier with a signal of 400 Hz and 500 Hz.

For example, the audio amplifier will generate sum and difference
distortion products of 100 Hz and 900 Hz. The RF amplifier will
gernerate sum and difference products of 100 MHz and 900 MHz. (And so
on, for all the other second and third order products.)

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
om

> The threshold of visibility is -60 dB. In audio terms, that would
> be 0.01% distortion.

-60 dB is 0.1%

> The threshold of interference visibility for
> video, seems to be about the same as the threshold of distortion
> audibility for audio.

Yes, even under the most ideal conditions, audibility of nonlinear
distortion seems to go away someplace around or below 0.1%. Under non-ideal
conditions, several percent nonlinear distortion can be missed.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Bob-Stanton" > wrote in message
> om
>
> > The threshold of visibility is -60 dB. In audio terms, that would
> > be 0.01% distortion.
>
> -60 dB is 0.1%


Yes, I agree. My mistake

-20 dB = 10% distortion
-40 dB = 1% distortion
-60 dB = 0.1% distortion

It just proves the old saying:
"There are three kinds of people in this world. Those who can do math
and those who can't." :-)

Bob Stanton

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> >

Snip
> >
>
>
How big was that telescope Bob?