Re: SET v. PP, the big fight tonight

[Trevor Wilson]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> Patrick Turner has proclaimed that none of what I wrote
>> is correct.
>
> All of this depends on the assumptions under which we are operating.
> You and Patrick may have less bother if you agree ground rules. This
> isn't a knock. I made the same error: I thought you and I had a set of
> assumptions agreed but it turns out not to be so when you say:
>
>>However, all
>> things being equal (or as equal as can be, PP will be superior).
>
> The horses for courses assumption, supported by the above, which I
> thought we had in common, is totally reversed in this exchange:
>
>> > Andre offers Trevor a handicap: You can assume the worst condition for
>> > SE (zero negative feedback) and the best condition for PP (all the
>> > negative feedback even an incompetent designer may want), and I'll
>> > still whip your ass.
>>
>> **Nope. If your hypothetical SE(T) amp uses no Global NFB, then so too
>> does
>> the hypothetical PP amp. Same output tubes, same Class A bias, similarly
>> sized power supply, etc, etc. Let's compare apples with apples, not
>> apples
>> with bricks.
>
> Oh dear. I was operating under assumption that all things are not
> equal, not in the sense you elaborate above, that instead we are
> positing a comparison between median real-life amps.

**That would be a really dumb way to compare topologies. If you are
comparing topologies (which we are) then we need to eliminate as many
variables as it is possible to do. Global NFB vs. zero Global NFB is a HUGE
variable.

For instance, a
> modern ZNFB SET amp is deliberately designed to be much flatter than
> say fifty years ago, while the PP amp will have much more power (than
> the SET) with NFB silencing it. That changes my view on these matters
> that you raise, even in the first (strictly technical) round where I
> agreed with you, the second harmonics matter excepted. I read "similar"

**When I say "similar" is mean SIMILAR. All the way down to the type of iron
used, tube types, resistor types, HT Voltages, bias currents and NFB
arrangements.


> in a very much wider context of merely meaning "competent" or "of
> presently acceptable design", whereas you (and John and Chris) are
> reading it as literal sameness, including precisely the same tubes at
> precisely the same power output with precisely the same NFB, which you
> specifically state later on.
>
>> **There is no necessity for a PP amp to use Global NFB. If you want to
>> compare non-Global NFB SE(T) amps, then compare them with a similarly
>> configured PP amp.
>
> If that sort of *equality*, meaning precise similarity to the greatest
> possible extent achievable, is the rule under which we're operating (a
> stupid ****ing way to proceed,

**Huh? If you're comparing output stage topologies (which we are) then it is
the ONLY way to proceed. Otherwise, you're just comparing different iron,
different NFB schemes, whatever.

even if more scientific--nobody would
> choke a PP amp down like that), I must be a greek giver. I cannot agree
> with you an any point in the first round except the second harmonic.

**Then you need to do more reading. Or testing. You choose.

>
>
>> >> * ALL SE amps suffer from even order harmonic distortion, which is
>> >> automatically reduced by using push pull topology. IOW: All things
>> >> being
>> >> approximately equal (same output valves, high quality iron, good power
>> >> supply, same bias current, etc) push pull will outperform SE.
>
> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.

**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
will lead to greater fidelity?

But in this
> contest, with both amps operating under the same conditions, they are
> assumed to be designed so that the harmonics of any nature are
> imperceptible.

**A bold assumption. Under what conditions can your SET amp acheive that?

>
>> >> * ALL SE amps suffer appallingly bad load tolerance. IOW: A 20 SE amp
>> >> (at
>> >> or
>> >> near clipping) will deliver 10 Watts @ 4 Ohms, 5 Watts @ 2 Ohms and so
>> >> on.
>> >> Unless the user has an almost resistive load, then severe power
>> >> problems
>> >> can
>> >> be expected. This problem can be eliminated by using push pull
>> >> topology.
>
> When the two amps use the same tubes under the same operating
> conditions? Rubbish. That's why I tried to give your beloved PP a break
> so you could win something in the first round.

**Huh? Let me spell it out for you: When your SE amp (of ANY variety) hits
it's maximum peak current, not only does it cease to be operating in Class
A, but it ceases to be an amplifier. *ANY* PP amp, will still continue to
act as an amplifier, even after it reaches a point where more peak current
is demanded, beyond it's bias point. It simply begins operation in Class B.
IOW: The worst case scenario will be that a PP amp will deliver
approximately similar power levels, even as the load impedance is halved. A
theoretically 'perfect' amplifier will, of course, double it's power as the
load impedance is successively halved. Therefore, *any* SE(T) amplifier is
the complete antithesis of the perfect amplifier.

>
>> >> * SE amps are MUCH less efficient that a similar power PP amp.
>
> In Class A?

**Yes. Want that RDH4 quote again?

Replace the loud "much" with a whimpered space, and I'll
> agree.
>
>> >> * SE amps, generally, exhibit higher levels of hum and noise than PP
>> >> amps.
>
> This is entirely an irrelevance in modern amps where we know how to
> reduce levels of hum and noise to better than acceptable levels. It is
> a petty point applicable only to the cheapest commercial amps. We're
> talking about a different class of amp.

**Fair enough. Nevertheless, it is a fact of life that PP confers an
automatic reduction in hum an noise.

>
>> >> * SE amps have a lower damping factor than a similar PP amp. This may
>> >> lead
>> >> to audible frequency response problems, within the audio range.
>
> I withdraw my original highly qualified agreement, given under a false
> assumption of amps of standard design for their class rather than
> artificially similar as in the new rules.
>
>> **One must compare apples with apples.
>
> Have it your way, Trevor. In that case, under the present rules your
> statement is incorrect.

**Huh?

>
>> **I have no issue with PP, of any persuasion. PP eliminates or reduces
>> most
>> of the problems associated with SE(T).
>
> But Trevor, there aren't any problems remaining.
>
> Under the new rules of equality, where I am defending ZNFB Class A SET
> against Trevor's ZNFB Class A PP, push pull topology simply does not
> have any technical advantage over SET, and in real life where the PP
> amp would use beam or pentode tubes and the SET a DHT, the SET has all
> the advantages of its built-in NFB.

**I suggest you read the sections I've previously cited from the RDH4. Your
knowledge is seriously deficient. Unless, of course, you feel that the autor
of the RDH4 was wrong.

>
>> --
>> Trevor Wilson
>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>
> You shouldn't have changed the rules Trevor. Under the new rules you
> cannot prove superiority for PP amps.

**I changed nothing. When comparing topolgies, it is appropriate to compare
ONLY the topolgy.

>
> Not that anyone changes behaviour, of course. You will play your
> beloved PP and I will play my beloved PP, and my beloved SET, and my
> beloved solid state. We'll both still be listening to the speakers, not
> the amps.
>
> Thanks for sparring.

**Sparring? What's with boxing metaphors?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[dave weil]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
>> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.
>
>**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
>will lead to greater fidelity?

Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

[Lionel]

dave "deaf" weil wrote :

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
>>> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.
>>
>>**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
>>will lead to greater fidelity?
>
> Where did he talk about "fidelity"?


Please Sir, excuse Dave. He is the only deaf audio-reviewer around here.

Dave I have already told you that because of your hearing problems you
should stay off the discussions about HiFi...
What about a little politic discussion with McKelvy on RAO, eh Dave ?



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Andre Jute]

dave weil wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
> >> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
> >> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.
> >
> >**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
> >will lead to greater fidelity?
>
> Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?

To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
is still the same. Here is an experiment:

Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
originally gave you in the concert hall. The PP amp will have that
disturbing edge of odd harmonics. Reduce the level of distortion a
little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
live with?

I would have given Trevor that one were he not trying to have it both
ways, on the one hand reproaching me for trying to cut his champion a
break by giving it NFB, on the other deceitfully claiming above that
despite making the amps precisely similar, which must surely include
the same level of THD (it would be hard to give them the same harmonics
spectrum!), the SE amp would still
have "higher levels of distortion". xTHD is xTHD, Trevor; all that is
different is the spectrum of harmonics.

But sure, I include in my definition of "greater fidelity" the quality
of distortion. When THD is levelpegged, the SE amp must produce a
superior quality result to that of the PP amp. (1)

You can't have it both ways, Trevor!

Andre Jute

(1) And, as Ruud Broens has already pointed out, odd harmonics are so
disturbing that even where the THD of a PP amplifier is lower than that
of an otherwise similar SE amp (Trevor's case above), the PP amp is
perceived as noisy whereas the SE amp is perceived as blamelessly
silent. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> dave weil wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
>> >> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.
>> >
>> >**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
>> >will lead to greater fidelity?
>>
>> Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?
>
> To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
> is still the same. Here is an experiment:
>
> Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
> and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
> be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

**I would accept that both amps display similar levels of odd order
distortion, at their rated power outputs. Say: 10 Watts(@ 8 Ohms) for the SE
and 20 Watts (@ 8 Ohms) for the PP. In that case, the SE amp will be
exhibiting MUCH higher levels of even order distortion than the PP amp. More
importantly, when the impedance of that speaker falls to (say) 4 Ohms, the
SE amp will fall on it's face, whist the PP amp will continue to deliver
more power (under most circumstances). Here is the impedance curve of a
(admittedly diabolical) 4 Ohms speaker:

www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg

Configured for the 4 Ohm tap, a 10 Watt SE amp will be delivering around 2
Watts at the impedance dips. The PP amp, OTOH, has a much better chance of
maintaining output Voltage, regardless of the impedance of the load. The SE
amp, despite heroic efforts to bolster power supplies, is inevitably limited
by it's bias current. It is a major and fatal flaw on the road to high
fidelity reproduction.

>
> Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
> originally gave you in the concert hall.

**Prove it. And forget about these musician friends. They are not
necessarily the ultimate arbiters of accurate sound reproduction equipment.

The PP amp will have that
> disturbing edge of odd harmonics.

**The PP amp will exhibit similar levels of odd order harmonics.

Reduce the level of distortion a
> little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
> can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
> after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

**Prove it. I don't know about you, but I listen to music at any
(reasonable) level I want. Being forced to listen at incredibly low levels
is quite an odd concept.

>
> Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
> live with?

**The amp which:

* Exhibits the lowest levels of (audible) distortion.
* Is capable of driving real world, off the shelf loudspeakers.
* Exhibits the most linear frequency response, when driving the
above-mentioned loudspeakers.

>
> I would have given Trevor that one were he not trying to have it both
> ways, on the one hand reproaching me for trying to cut his champion a
> break by giving it NFB, on the other deceitfully claiming above that
> despite making the amps precisely similar, which must surely include
> the same level of THD (it would be hard to give them the same harmonics
> spectrum!), the SE amp would still
> have "higher levels of distortion". xTHD is xTHD, Trevor; all that is
> different is the spectrum of harmonics.

**Incorrect. For and SE amp and a PP amp to deliver a similar level of odd
harmonic distortion, the SE amp MUST deliver significantly higher levels of
even order distortion. Want me to quote the relevant RDH4 sections (again)?

>
> But sure, I include in my definition of "greater fidelity" the quality
> of distortion. When THD is levelpegged, the SE amp must produce a
> superior quality result to that of the PP amp. (1)

**Not possible. The SE amp will ALWAYS be generating higher levels of even
order distortion. PP automatically reduces this effect. ref: RDH4.

>
> You can't have it both ways, Trevor!

**PP amps allow it. PP amps provide the best of all possible results, with
no downsides (apart from a modest increase in complexity).

>
> Andre Jute
>
> (1) And, as Ruud Broens has already pointed out, odd harmonics are so
> disturbing that even where the THD of a PP amplifier is lower than that
> of an otherwise similar SE amp (Trevor's case above), the PP amp is
> perceived as noisy whereas the SE amp is perceived as blamelessly
> silent. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

**Indeed. Distortion is bad. Whether it be even or odd order. Given that PP
amps reduce even order distortion, they MUST be a better way.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 19 Dec 2005 15:30:31 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
>> >> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.
>> >
>> >**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
>> >will lead to greater fidelity?
>>
>> Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?
>
>To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
>is still the same. Here is an experiment:
>
>Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
>and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
>be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.

If the two amps are *in fact* the same in all respects, i.e the same
tubes at the same operating point, then the SE amp will have the same
level of odd harmonics as the PP amp - but *much* more 2nd harmonic
than the PP, which of course cancels the even harmonics.

To make the distortion levels 'just perceptible' in each case means
that the SE amp has much *less* basic distortion than the PP amp -
which is of course a completely unrealistic scenario.

>Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
>originally gave you in the concert hall.

No, it will give you a warm glow that *never existed* in the concert
hall - it washes whiter than white.

> The PP amp will have that
>disturbing edge of odd harmonics. Reduce the level of distortion a
>little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
>can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
>after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

If the distortion is below perception in each case, then the amps will
sound identical. I believe our colonial cousins would insert a 'duuhh'
around here somewhere.......

>Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
>live with?

In the second case, they are both just fine, but the SE amp will have
cost much more, so you have less money to spend on speakers.......

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Andre Jute]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 15:30:31 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
> >> >> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.
> >> >
> >> >**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
> >> >will lead to greater fidelity?
> >>
> >> Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?
> >
> >To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
> >is still the same. Here is an experiment:
> >
> >Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
> >and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
> >be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.
>
> If the two amps are *in fact* the same in all respects, i.e the same
> tubes at the same operating point, then the SE amp will have the same
> level of odd harmonics as the PP amp - but *much* more 2nd harmonic
> than the PP, which of course cancels the even harmonics.
>
> To make the distortion levels 'just perceptible' in each case means
> that the SE amp has much *less* basic distortion than the PP amp -
> which is of course a completely unrealistic scenario.

Exactly! That is why a silent SE amp, such as I build, sounds so much
better than anything else.

Life isn't fair, Stewart. That's just a normative case they teach in
engineering departments so the students don't run away to become
plumbers and earn real money and retire to Spain (horrid thought) at
35.

> >Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
> >originally gave you in the concert hall.
>
> No, it will give you a warm glow that *never existed* in the concert
> hall - it washes whiter than white.

Hey, persil is good too. I'm outa advertising. The housewife isn't
stupid, she's your wife. The audiophile, at least the one with the
sense to buy tubes, isn't stupid, he's your paymaster.

> > The PP amp will have that
> >disturbing edge of odd harmonics. Reduce the level of distortion a
> >little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
> >can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
> >after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.

> If the distortion is below perception in each case, then the amps will
> sound identical.

In your normative case, sure. In real life the SE amp will be ZNFB and
the PP amp will have NFB. After 14 hours (not a random number but the
average number of hours an amp is on in my study every day) the SE amp
will still please but the NFB will not just be audible, it will visible
and threatening. This isn't about numbers but about the discrimination
of taste and experience.

> I believe our colonial cousins would insert a 'duuhh'
> around here somewhere.......

Proud to be an Australian.

> >Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
> >live with?
>
> In the second case, they are both just fine, but the SE amp will have
> cost much more, so you have less money to spend on speakers.......

Says a guy who bought a Krell! What's more, the discussion above
proceeded from the standpoint that the audiophile in question already
owns Quad ESL of some kind and Tannoy Royal Westminsters too. He's not
spending on speakers any more. I didn't mention that as it was too
obvious.

> --
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in
message

> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

>> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd
>> harmonics of PP even when the latter is at a much lower
>> absolute level.

One might try to compare SET and PP by comparing two amplifiers, one a SET
and the other a PP amp built up by running two SETs identical to the first,
in PP.

Now let's compare these two amps that differ only in that one is PP and the
other is SET. Let's further stipulate that listening levels will be kept
low, so that any power advantage of the PP amp is nullified.

We find that the SET puts out its usual mixture of even and odd-order
distortion. The PP setup will internally cancel out the even order
distortion, leaving only the same odd order distortion that the SET
produced. From the stand point of production of odd order distortion, the
two amps are identical. The SET differs in that it also produces even order
distortion.

The SET amplifier therefore provides no meaningful advantage from the
standpoint of reduction of odd-order distortion. It simply produces more
even-order distortion.

It is well known that amplifier nonlinearity whether odd or even order does
not produce only harmonic distortion. Amplifier nonlinearity produces IM
distortion. Even order nonlinearity is an especially effective means for
producing intermodulation products. IM distortion is almost guaranteed to be
non-harmonic and therefore very irritating to listen to.

In addition to producing less over-all distortion, the PP amplifier will
also produce less IM distortion than the SET amplifier.


> **Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher
> levels of distortion will lead to greater fidelity?

The universe of SET hysteria, of course! ;-)

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2005 15:30:31 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dave weil wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.
>> >> >
>> >> >**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of
>> >> >distortion
>> >> >will lead to greater fidelity?
>> >>
>> >> Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?
>> >
>> >To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
>> >is still the same. Here is an experiment:
>> >
>> >Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
>> >and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
>> >be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.
>>
>> If the two amps are *in fact* the same in all respects, i.e the same
>> tubes at the same operating point, then the SE amp will have the same
>> level of odd harmonics as the PP amp - but *much* more 2nd harmonic
>> than the PP, which of course cancels the even harmonics.
>>
>> To make the distortion levels 'just perceptible' in each case means
>> that the SE amp has much *less* basic distortion than the PP amp -
>> which is of course a completely unrealistic scenario.
>
> Exactly! That is why a silent SE amp, such as I build, sounds so much
> better than anything else.
>

The only time an SET sounds good is when it's silent. :-) It's when you
turn them on that they suck.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2005 15:30:31 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dave weil wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:28:36 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> True. A great advantage, much more pleasant than the odd harmonics of
>> >> >> PP even when the latter is at a much lower absolute level.
>> >> >
>> >> >**Huh? In which universe do you imagine that higher levels of distortion
>> >> >will lead to greater fidelity?
>> >>
>> >> Where did he talk about "fidelity"? Can you say, "Strawman"?
>> >
>> >To be fair, Dave, he talks about "greater fidelity", thought the answer
>> >is still the same. Here is an experiment:
>> >
>> >Set up two amplifiers exactly the same in all respects except one is PP
>> >and the other is SE, with just enough distortion on each amplifier to
>> >be perceptible to a refined listener. Spin a disc.
>>
>> If the two amps are *in fact* the same in all respects, i.e the same
>> tubes at the same operating point, then the SE amp will have the same
>> level of odd harmonics as the PP amp - but *much* more 2nd harmonic
>> than the PP, which of course cancels the even harmonics.
>>
>> To make the distortion levels 'just perceptible' in each case means
>> that the SE amp has much *less* basic distortion than the PP amp -
>> which is of course a completely unrealistic scenario.
>
>Exactly! That is why a silent SE amp, such as I build, sounds so much
>better than anything else.

Except that you don't, and they don't.

>Life isn't fair, Stewart. That's just a normative case they teach in
>engineering departments so the students don't run away to become
>plumbers and earn real money and retire to Spain (horrid thought) at
>35.

Sure life's fair - it's *people* who try to make it unfair.

>> >Now the SE amp will give you the warm glow that the same music
>> >originally gave you in the concert hall.
>>
>> No, it will give you a warm glow that *never existed* in the concert
>> hall - it washes whiter than white.
>
>Hey, persil is good too. I'm outa advertising. The housewife isn't
>stupid, she's your wife. The audiophile, at least the one with the
>sense to buy tubes, isn't stupid, he's your paymaster.

Nope, he's spent far too much money on tubes to afford to hire anyone.

>> > The PP amp will have that
>> >disturbing edge of odd harmonics. Reduce the level of distortion a
>> >little to below perception. Now the SE amp still sounds great and you
>> >can live with for a long time. But the PP amp is not so comfortable
>> >after a disc or two; it demands attention with a certain edgy quality.
>
>> If the distortion is below perception in each case, then the amps will
>> sound identical.
>
>In your normative case, sure. In real life the SE amp will be ZNFB and
>the PP amp will have NFB. After 14 hours (not a random number but the
>average number of hours an amp is on in my study every day) the SE amp
>will still please but the NFB will not just be audible, it will visible
>and threatening. This isn't about numbers but about the discrimination
>of taste and experience.

Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
amp is the one that's actually connected!

>> I believe our colonial cousins would insert a 'duuhh'
>> around here somewhere.......
>
>Proud to be an Australian.

I thought you were a Sarth Efrikaan?

>> >Which offers a window on the concert hall? Which is the amp you want to
>> >live with?
>>
>> In the second case, they are both just fine, but the SE amp will have
>> cost much more, so you have less money to spend on speakers.......
>
>Says a guy who bought a Krell!

Indeed, and for less then a grand, and it drives everything from
Lowthers to Apogees with equal aplomb - and sound just like its input
signal, as it should.

> What's more, the discussion above
>proceeded from the standpoint that the audiophile in question already
>owns Quad ESL of some kind and Tannoy Royal Westminsters too. He's not
>spending on speakers any more. I didn't mention that as it was too
>obvious.

Not an unreasonable choice for the well-heeled audiophile, just needs
a decent 60-watter in each case. Fortunately, many excellent amps of
this description are currently available.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Trevor Wilson]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>
> Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
> is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
> happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
> amp is the one that's actually connected!

**Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of
the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in
each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told
the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it
for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
> of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out
> of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into
> the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP
> amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and
> ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in
> place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way
> unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of
> course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After
> he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so
> good.
>
>

Gross hypocricy noted.
Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
a customer.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>>
>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
>> of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
>> (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
>> into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
>> power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
>> amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
>> valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
>> any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
>> cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
>> stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
>> sounded so good.
>>
>>
>
> Gross hypocricy noted.
> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
> a customer.

**Lemme examine the facts:

* I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
* The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
* I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around AUS$200.00.
* I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
client was not satisfied.
* The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as good.
* The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did
when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps
which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.

You call that 'fraud'?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>>
>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
>> of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
>> (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
>> into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
>> power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
>> amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
>> valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
>> any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
>> cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
>> stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
>> sounded so good.
>>
>>
>
> Gross hypocricy noted.
> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
> a customer.
>
How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
>>> most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
>>> three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
>>> price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
>>> small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
>>> each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
>>> the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
>>> in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
>>> The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
>>> faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
>>> had never sounded so good.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>> a customer.
>>
> How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?
>

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
>>> most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
>>> three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
>>> price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
>>> small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
>>> each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
>>> the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
>>> in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
>>> The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
>>> faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
>>> had never sounded so good.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>> a customer.
>>
> How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?
>

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
>>> most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
>>> three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
>>> price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
>>> small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
>>> each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
>>> the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
>>> in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
>>> The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
>>> faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
>>> had never sounded so good.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>> a customer.
>>
> How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

Because he did not disclose the modifications.

Sorry for the erant double clicks!

Anyway, he asked for a repair of a tube amp, not a replacement
of the tube components with a ss components.
A proper repair woud be the replacement of
of like components. Making a substantive modification
without notification and consent of the owner is unethical.
If a proper repair could not be made on an economic
scale, this should have been discussed with the unit owner.

Mikey, can't you perceive
the deceptivemess of what Trevor did?

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
>>> most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
>>> three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
>>> price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
>>> small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
>>> each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
>>> the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
>>> in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
>>> The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
>>> faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
>>> had never sounded so good.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>> a customer.
>
> **Lemme examine the facts:
>
> * I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
> * The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
> * I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around
> AUS$200.00.
> * I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
> client was not satisfied.
> * The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as
> good.
> * The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did
> when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps
> which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.
>
> You call that 'fraud'?
>

Yes, you did not notify or discuss the mdifications with the owner.
Well, let's say it was quite deceptive.
I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
who would do something similar to that, whether
for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

[[email protected]]

I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would
be unable to discern the difference....

Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if
it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud.

Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200
translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, but speaking for
myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix'
that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a
much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference,
well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct
instructions, also well and good.

But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
where you are on the ethics scale.

Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
solid-state amps do not. What what happens if he changes the
application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought. You
understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.

And, after all that, was it worth it?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Sander deWaal]

"Trevor Wilson" > said:

>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
>>> of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
>>> (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
>>> into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
>>> power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
>>> amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
>>> valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
>>> any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
>>> cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
>>> stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
>>> sounded so good.


>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>> a customer.

>**Lemme examine the facts:

>* I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
>* The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
>* I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around AUS$200.00.
>* I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
>client was not satisfied.
>* The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as good.
>* The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did
>when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps
>which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.

>You call that 'fraud'?


I would never have done this without asking the customer first.

--

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

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would
> be unable to discern the difference....

So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?

>
> Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if
> it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud.
>

Let's just say deceptive and dishonest.


> Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200
> translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, but speaking for
> myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix'
> that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
> would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a
> much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference,
> well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct
> instructions, also well and good.
>
> But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
> is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
> with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
> additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
> where you are on the ethics scale.
>
> Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
> solid-state amps do not. What what happens if he changes the
> application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought. You
> understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
> his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
> real or imagined that is touched by this amp.
>
> So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
> play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.
>
> And, after all that, was it worth it?
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA
>

Good points

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/21/05 4:00 PM:

"I left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If
was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
The
cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
sounded so good . . . . "

"You call that 'fraud'?"

* * * *

You deliberately misled the client who was left with the impression that you
fixed his tube amp. That's deception. And I think it also meets the
definition of fraud.

Don't be to quick to congratulate yourself for making his amp sound better
than before. After all, it was totally broken before the mod.

Sheesh. You'd even make a "dishonest garage trader" blush . . . .

Jon

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked
>>>> to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart
>>>> from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors
>>>> and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it
>>>> had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put
>>>> the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair
>>>> of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front
>>>> of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I
>>>> left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp.
>>>> If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in
>>>> full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all
>>>> the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his
>>>> amps had never sounded so good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>>> a customer.
>>
>> **Lemme examine the facts:
>>
>> * I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
>> * The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
>> * I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around
>> AUS$200.00.
>> * I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
>> client was not satisfied.
>> * The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as
>> good.
>> * The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they
>> did when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power
>> amps which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.
>>
>> You call that 'fraud'?
>>
>
> Yes, you did not notify or discuss the mdifications with the owner.
> Well, let's say it was quite deceptive.
> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
> who would do something similar to that, whether
> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>I suspect you wouldn't want to find out that you were fooled into thinking
>that something other than what you had previously thought was a great amp
>could be switched on you and you not know it. Welcome to a reason for
>DBT.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would
> be unable to discern the difference....
>
> Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if
> it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud.
>
> Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200
> translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, but speaking for
> myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix'
> that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
> would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a
> much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference,
> well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct
> instructions, also well and good.
>
> But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
> is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
> with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
> additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
> where you are on the ethics scale.
>
> Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
> solid-state amps do not. What what happens if he changes the
> application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought. You
> understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
> his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
> real or imagined that is touched by this amp.
>
> So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
> play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.
>
> And, after all that, was it worth it?
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA
>
OK, I concede.

Still it points up how idiotic the whole amp sound nonsense is and how easy
it is for us to fool ourselves into thinging we have something that sounds
one way, but acutally sounds another or makes no difference.

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked
>>>> to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart
>>>> from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors
>>>> and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it
>>>> had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put
>>>> the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair
>>>> of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front
>>>> of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I
>>>> left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp.
>>>> If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in
>>>> full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all
>>>> the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his
>>>> amps had never sounded so good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>>> a customer.
>>>
>> How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?
>
> Because he did not disclose the modifications.
>
> Sorry for the erant double clicks!
>
> Anyway, he asked for a repair of a tube amp, not a replacement
> of the tube components with a ss components.
> A proper repair woud be the replacement of
> of like components. Making a substantive modification
> without notification and consent of the owner is unethical.
> If a proper repair could not be made on an economic
> scale, this should have been discussed with the unit owner.
>
> Mikey, can't you perceive
> the deceptivemess of what Trevor did?
>
>
>
Already conceded the point in another post.

Do you not see now how easy it is to be fooled by the placebo effect?
This guy should have, assuming all the subjective crap about sighted tests
was accurate, been able to tell that his amp was no completely different.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked
>>>> to service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart
>>>> from several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors
>>>> and most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it
>>>> had three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put
>>>> the price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair
>>>> of small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front
>>>> of each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I
>>>> left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp.
>>>> If was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in
>>>> full. The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all
>>>> the faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his
>>>> amps had never sounded so good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>>> a customer.
>>
>> **Lemme examine the facts:
>>
>> * I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
>> * The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
>> * I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around
>> AUS$200.00.
>> * I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
>> client was not satisfied.
>> * The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as
>> good.
>> * The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they
>> did when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power
>> amps which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.
>>
>> You call that 'fraud'?
>>
>
> Yes, you did not notify or discuss the mdifications with the owner.

**That is not entirely true. I DID discuss what I termed "radical
alterations, in order to keep costs at a minimum" with the client. He OK'd
the job, after my assurances that he would receive a money back guarantee.

> Well, let's say it was quite deceptive.

**That would your opinion. My client liked the cosmetics of his old amps and
wished to retain the charm of the products. I complied with his requests.

> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
> who would do something similar to that, whether
> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.

**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to him, he would
> be unable to discern the difference....
>
> Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty obvious. But if
> it is not fraud, it certainly treads on the knife's edge of fraud.


**Where did you acquire your legal training? And what do you understand by
the words: "Money back guarantee, if not completely satisfied."?

>
> Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea what AUS$200
> translates in off-the-shelf buying power these days, but speaking for
> myself, I would have told the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix'
> that would give him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
> would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid for, but at a
> much higher price. If he did not ask you to explain the difference,
> well and good. If he did, and you did in accordance with his direct
> instructions, also well and good.

**If he asked what I had done, I would have explained in exquisite detail.
He was pleased to have his amps back and functioning and looking just like
they did when he gave them to me for service.

>
> But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
> is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
> with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
> additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
> where you are on the ethics scale.

**It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the use
of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an 'automatic'
upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to use
modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?

>
> Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
> solid-state amps do not.

**That is a false and oft-repeated claim. SOME tube amps clip softly and
SOME SS amps do not. You forget that I had one good channel, with which I
was able to measure and duplicate the performance from.

What what happens if he changes the
> application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought.

**Question based on previous false assumption. Your question is, therefore,
invalid.

You
> understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
> his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
> real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

**In which universe do you imagine that such a warranty has to be provided?
Look at the facts:

* The amp is now MUCH more reliable than it was.
* The amp will enjoy a much longer life than it previously could.
* The now has protection against owner stupidity, which it did not
previously have.

>
> So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
> play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.

**It may do so.

>
> And, after all that, was it worth it?

**Lemme see:

* I have a happy client, who has since sent several other items to me for
service and has also recommended several other clients to me.

Yes, it was well worth it. For all concerned.

Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it accordingly.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Andre Jute]

Jon Yaeger wrote:
> in article , Trevor Wilson at
> wrote on 12/21/05 4:00 PM:
>
> "I left the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If
> was in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
> The
> cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
> stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
> sounded so good . . . . "
>
> "You call that 'fraud'?"
>
> * * * *
>
> You deliberately misled the client who was left with the impression that you
> fixed his tube amp. That's deception. And I think it also meets the
> definition of fraud.
>
> Don't be to quick to congratulate yourself for making his amp sound better
> than before. After all, it was totally broken before the mod.
>
> Sheesh. You'd even make a "dishonest garage trader" blush . . . .
>
> Jon

Yeah, after the kicking you took for merely being *shoddy* about the
provenance of an amplifier design and *careless* about who you
believed, and then being too stubborn to admit you were wrong, what
Wilson did must rate at least electrodes to the testicles.

"Fraud" doesn't even begin to describe what Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio
did to this poor unwitting customer.

In the championship dishonesty stakes, Jon, you're a piker... no,
that's the wrong word, a pike is a predator... you're a throw-back
fingerling trout, accident-prone rather than actively dishonest.

Andre Jute
It's the shock of being exposed to RAO that made me so nice

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
> approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
> cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
> would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
> reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>

IF YOUR MECHANIC TOLD YOU!!!!!!
That's my point.

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> * I have a happy client, who has since sent several other items to me for
> service and has also recommended several other clients to me.
>

If he knew of your deceit,
he might not have recommended you to anyone else.

[Andre Jute]

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.


You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.

I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.

It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.

Andre Jute

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
> >
> > Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
> > is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
> > happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
> > amp is the one that's actually connected!
>
> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of
> the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
> four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
> ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in
> each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
> whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told
> the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
> result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
> significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it
> for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>

>
> Do you not see now how easy it is to be fooled by the placebo effect?
> This guy should have, assuming all the subjective crap about sighted tests
> was accurate, been able to tell that his amp was no completely different.
>

It wasn't a sighted test.
It wasn't even any test at all.
Surely you can see that.

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/21/05 7:36 PM:

>
> **If he asked what I had done, I would have explained in exquisite detail.
> He was pleased to have his amps back and functioning and looking just like
> they did when he gave them to me for service.

* * * Hmmm. A tube works because of an air vacuum. A serviced amp works
because of an ethical vacuum . . . ?

"If only he had asked" is beyond lame . . . . Gee, I would have told the
nice sheila that I slipped her a mickey before I shagged her brains out if
only she had asked!

Trevor, as a serviceman you have a duty of disclosure so that a client can
make an informed decision, even if that decision is ultimately not is his or
her best interest.

>>
>> But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
>> is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
>> with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
>> additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
>> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
>> where you are on the ethics scale.
>
> **It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
> involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
> appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the use
> of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an 'automatic'
> upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
> units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to use
> modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
> performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?

* * * How is an upgrade or mod anywhere on the same continuum as deception?
There ain't no line to draw between these two disparate points, IMHO.
>
>>
>> Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
>> solid-state amps do not.
>
> **That is a false and oft-repeated claim. SOME tube amps clip softly and
> SOME SS amps do not. You forget that I had one good channel, with which I
> was able to measure and duplicate the performance from.
>
> What what happens if he changes the
>> application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought.
>
> **Question based on previous false assumption. Your question is, therefore,
> invalid.

* * * You can parse a logical argument but keep flexible on ethical
matters?
>
> You
>> understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
>> his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
>> real or imagined that is touched by this amp.
>
> **In which universe do you imagine that such a warranty has to be provided?
> Look at the facts:
>
> * The amp is now MUCH more reliable than it was.

* * * Ergo, the ends justify the means? Sometimes . . . But not here.

> * The amp will enjoy a much longer life than it previously could.
> * The now has protection against owner stupidity, which it did not
> previously have.

* * * Guess the owner was too stupid to explain what you did.
>
>>
>> So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
>> play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.
>
> **It may do so.
>
>>
>> And, after all that, was it worth it?
>
> **Lemme see:
>
> * I have a happy client, who has since sent several other items to me for
> service and has also recommended several other clients to me.
>
> Yes, it was well worth it. For all concerned.
>
> Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
> other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it accordingly.
>

* * * *

Let's sift through the bull****.

Give me the contact information for your client. I'll ask him if he knew
what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how
happy he was with the info.

Jon

[Pooh Bear]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.

Andrew Joot of no audio skill of note, you are a pontificating, deceitful windbag.

Graham

[Jon Yaeger]

in article . com, Andre Jute
at wrote on 12/21/05 7:41 PM:

>
> Yeah, after the kicking you took for merely being *shoddy* about the
> provenance of an amplifier design and *careless* about who you
> believed, and then being too stubborn to admit you were wrong, what
> Wilson did must rate at least electrodes to the testicles.

* * *

If you are talking about Henry's amplifier, any "shoddiness" about it's
provenance was due to my ignorance. I appreciate being corrected, especially
of the person offering the correction is correct as well.

I've never claimed anything but novice status. I continue to learn. I
don't have any problems admitting error in the tube world.
>
> "Fraud" doesn't even begin to describe what Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio
> did to this poor unwitting customer.
>
> In the championship dishonesty stakes, Jon, you're a piker... no,
> that's the wrong word, a pike is a predator... you're a throw-back
> fingerling trout, accident-prone rather than actively dishonest.

* * * And what can I learn from you on the topic of honesty?
>
> Andre Jute
> It's the shock of being exposed to RAO that made me so nice
>

[Trevor Wilson]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
>> approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
>> cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative,
>> which would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>> reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>
>
> IF YOUR MECHANIC TOLD YOU!!!!!!
> That's my point.

**I offered my client the two alternatives. I just did not spell out in
exquisite detail what the two alternatives were.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
> client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
> alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
> that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
> actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.

**I was asked to make two amplifiers function. I did so.

>
>
> You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
> the property he pays for.

**I provided a money back guarantee.

>
> I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
> fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
> explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.

**The amplifier performs at least as well as it did when new.

>
> It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
> being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.

**After you chickened out in our last discourse, I should have realised that
you have no stomach for an honest discussion.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Andre Jute]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.
>
> Andrew Joot of no audio skill of note, you are a pontificating, deceitful windbag.
>
> Graham

Here we have the difference between you and me, Poopie. You make wild
statements on the basis of nothing except your pointless spite and
envy. When I make a statement, it is backed by facts and reaoned
deduction, which provide for all to judge.

Andre Jute

And here are the facts and deductions I cited which Graham Poopie
Stevenson deceitfully deleted:

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.



You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.


I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.


It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.


Andre Jute


- Hide quoted text -

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:


> > Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
> > is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
> > happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
> > amp is the one that's actually connected!


> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of
> the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
> four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
> ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in
> each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
> whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told
> the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
> result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
> significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it
> for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.


> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

[Pooh Bear]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > > Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.
> >
> > Andrew Joot of no audio skill of note, you are a pontificating, deceitful windbag.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Here we have the difference between you and me, Poopie. You make wild
> statements on the basis of nothing except your pointless spite and
> envy.

Envy ? You *have* to be joking ! I'd be embarrased to have as little understanding of
audio as yourself. Your apparent disdain for getting to grips with important details is
what marks you out as a jester looking for quick dirty inaccuarate 'answers'.

> When I make a statement, it is backed by facts and reaoned
> deduction, which provide for all to judge.

And I read the *whole*. Not selected snippets such as you provide.

Graham

[Andre Jute]

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
> > client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
> > alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
> > that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
> > actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.
>
> **I was asked to make two amplifiers function. I did so.
>
> >
> >
> > You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
> > the property he pays for.
>
> **I provided a money back guarantee.
>
> >
> > I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
> > fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
> > explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.
>
> **The amplifier performs at least as well as it did when new.
>
> >
> > It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
> > being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.
>
> **After you chickened out in our last discourse, I should have realised that
> you have no stomach for an honest discussion.

Where is the honesty in you taking money for altering a customer's
property radically without his knowledge or his consent? Where is the
honesty in taking money for not telling the customer, the owner of the
property, what you did? Where is the honesty in taking money for
holding the customer up to ridicule on the net to satisfy your sick
urge to win a minor debating point?

You committed fraud and theft, Wilson. You also dishonestly snipped my
original letter to remove the evidence from your own mouth of your
fraud and your theft. I reprint both your admission and my conclusion
below my signature.

> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

I wouldn't buy blank DVD's from Rage Audio, never mind entrust my
amplifier to the fraud and thief Trevor Wilson. Who knows what he will
do with it? Who knows when he will gloat on the net that I paid him to
defraud me and steal from me.

Andre Jute

Here is Trevor Wilson's own account of how Rage Audio treats its
customers, and my conclusions again, since Wilson deceitfully snipped
the evidence and the reasoning:

Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.



You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
the property he pays for.


I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.


It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.


Andre Jute


- Hide quoted text -

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 21 Dec 2005 00:50:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:


> > Actually, in your case it's about bull****. A clean amp is a clean amp
> > is a clean amp. It is always informative when you are ruminating
> > happily about the wonders of SET - and suddenly realise that the other
> > amp is the one that's actually connected!


> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most of
> the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
> four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
> ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps in
> each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
> whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and told
> the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
> result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
> significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used it
> for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.


> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile
>>> (the approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it
>>> would cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an
>>> alternative, which would provide the same functionality, safety and
>>> higher levels of reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>>
>>
>> IF YOUR MECHANIC TOLD YOU!!!!!!
>> That's my point.
>
> **I offered my client the two alternatives. I just did not spell out in
> exquisite detail what the two alternatives were.
>

That doesn't jive with this:

"> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
> of
> the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three (out of
> four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price into the
> ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small power OP amps
> in
> each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP amp and ran the
> whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the valves in place and
> told
> the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in any way unhappy with the
> result, I would refund his money, in full. The cost, of course, was
> significantly lower than replacing all the faulty stuff. After he'd used
> it
> for a week, he reported that his amps had never sounded so good.?"

[Trevor Wilson]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
>> > client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
>> > alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
>> > that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
>> > actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.
>>
>> **I was asked to make two amplifiers function. I did so.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
>> > the property he pays for.
>>
>> **I provided a money back guarantee.
>>
>> >
>> > I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
>> > fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
>> > explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.
>>
>> **The amplifier performs at least as well as it did when new.
>>
>> >
>> > It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
>> > being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.
>>
>> **After you chickened out in our last discourse, I should have realised
>> that
>> you have no stomach for an honest discussion.
>
> Where is the honesty in you taking money for altering a customer's
> property radically without his knowledge or his consent?

**I gave my client two choices. AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. I promised him
that the cheaper choice would be at least as good and provided a money back
gurarantee. He agreed to the cheaper option.

Where is the
> honesty in taking money for not telling the customer, the owner of the
> property, what you did?

**I told the client that I would make his amp at least as good as what it
was when it was new. It did, in fact, sound better than a new amp.

Where is the honesty in taking money for
> holding the customer up to ridicule on the net to satisfy your sick
> urge to win a minor debating point?

**I would only be holding him up to ridicule, if:

* He chose the expensive option.
* I publically named him (which I will never do).

>
> You committed fraud and theft, Wilson. You also dishonestly snipped my
> original letter to remove the evidence from your own mouth of your
> fraud and your theft. I reprint both your admission and my conclusion
> below my signature.

**I note your continued inability to carry on a rational discussion.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[[email protected]]

>**It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
>involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
>appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the use
>of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an 'automatic'
>upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
>units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to use
>modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
>performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?

Somewhere between upgrading essentially like-for-like parts and
complete conversion from tube to SS.

Hey, guy, I brought you in a diesel, and you gave me back a similarly
powerful gasoline engine. Since I am nearly deaf, I could not tell the
difference right away. But....

That you did not tell him and that you did not get his approval (even
appreciation) in advance is where the ethics break down. Remind me not
to take stuff to you for service. Your heart may be in the right place,
and maybe you even did a clever piece of work, but sheeesh.....

>Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
>other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it accordingly.

What you did is the functional equivalent of those "Spirit of St.
Louis" crappo-repro radios. Faux tubes. Some appreciate that, and he
may well have. But, in fact, it was not your decision to make.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>
>>
>> Do you not see now how easy it is to be fooled by the placebo effect?
>> This guy should have, assuming all the subjective crap about sighted
>> tests was accurate, been able to tell that his amp was no completely
>> different.
>>
>
> It wasn't a sighted test.
> It wasn't even any test at all.
> Surely you can see that.
>
>

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>
>>
>> Do you not see now how easy it is to be fooled by the placebo effect?
>> This guy should have, assuming all the subjective crap about sighted
>> tests was accurate, been able to tell that his amp was no completely
>> different.
>>
>
> It wasn't a sighted test.
> It wasn't even any test at all.
> Surely you can see that.
>
>
I see a guy who had a tube amp and now doesn't and can't tell the
difference.
I see a guy who is the same as most people in the world who when they don't
know they've been fooled, hear what they expect.

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster. To take a
>> client's property, fail to perform the service on it he requester,
>> alter his property without his consent or knowledge, not advise him
>> that you have so altered it, and then to brag on the net that your
>> actions prove some fanciful view of yours is despicable and fraudulent.
>
> **I was asked to make two amplifiers function. I did so.
>
>>
>>
>> You are also a thief. You have stolen his right to choose for himself
>> the property he pays for.
>
> **I provided a money back guarantee.
>
>>
>> I notice elsewhere in the thread your claim that your action wasn't
>> fraud. Call your friendly local trading standards officer to come
>> explain the law and common trading ethics to you free of charge.
>
> **The amplifier performs at least as well as it did when new.
>
>>
>> It sickens me that I corresponded with you as if you were a human
>> being. I should have listened to Patrick Turner's warnings about you.
>
> **After you chickened out in our last discourse, I should have realised
> that you have no stomach for an honest discussion.
>
>
You should have been able to see that from his previous posts, some of whch
I posted.

[Trevor Wilson]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> >**It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
>>involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
>>appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the use
>>of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an
>>'automatic'
>>upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
>>units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to
>>use
>>modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
>>performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?
>
> Somewhere between upgrading essentially like-for-like parts and
> complete conversion from tube to SS.
>
> Hey, guy, I brought you in a diesel, and you gave me back a similarly
> powerful gasoline engine. Since I am nearly deaf, I could not tell the
> difference right away. But....

**BIG difference. You can't run a diesel engine on gasoline. For all intents
and purposes, the amplifiers were the same as they came in. Except they now
work. In any case, I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. Do you have a
concept of what that means?

>
> That you did not tell him and that you did not get his approval (even
> appreciation) in advance is where the ethics break down. Remind me not
> to take stuff to you for service. Your heart may be in the right place,
> and maybe you even did a clever piece of work, but sheeesh.....

**I provided my client with two choices - AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He
chose.

>
>>Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
>>other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it accordingly.
>
> What you did is the functional equivalent of those "Spirit of St.
> Louis" crappo-repro radios. Faux tubes. Some appreciate that, and he
> may well have. But, in fact, it was not your decision to make.

**Not even close. The amplifiers are essentially untouched. All the original
parts are still in place (including the faulty output transformers). All the
old 1960s components. I just added a few, more modern bits, disconnected the
HT supply and provided a reliable, working pair of amplifiers, with a
WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I just thought I'd emphasise that one more
time. If the client wants to resurrect them back to their original condition
(well, as close as possible, anyway, given that they've already seem several
previous service jobs from other companies, over the years), then all the
parts are there. It would be a relatively simple (if not expensive) job to
do so.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Trevor Wilson at
> wrote on 12/21/05 7:36 PM:
>
>>
>> **If he asked what I had done, I would have explained in exquisite
>> detail.
>> He was pleased to have his amps back and functioning and looking just
>> like
>> they did when he gave them to me for service.
>
> * * * Hmmm. A tube works because of an air vacuum. A serviced amp works
> because of an ethical vacuum . . . ?
>
> "If only he had asked" is beyond lame . . . . Gee, I would have told the
> nice sheila that I slipped her a mickey before I shagged her brains out if
> only she had asked!
>
> Trevor, as a serviceman you have a duty of disclosure so that a client can
> make an informed decision, even if that decision is ultimately not is his
> or
> her best interest.

**I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He
did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound
quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish.

>
>>>
>>> But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception (and that it
>>> is) at _any_ point in the future, you are 100% obligated to provide him
>>> with a repair up to his full and initial expectations, and at no
>>> additional cost, not merely refund his money. By letting him get out of
>>> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure, that is exactly
>>> where you are on the ethics scale.
>>
>> **It gets a little more complex than that. After all, much of my work
>> involves straight service work. Some entails performance mods, where
>> appropriate. In many cases, due to the improvements gained through the
>> use
>> of modern components and thinking, some repair work invloves an
>> 'automatic'
>> upgrade. For instance: Replacing some capacitors and resistors in older
>> units, with identical parts, is impossible. It is now only reasonable to
>> use
>> modern, high performance items. This will, inevitably, result in a
>> performance improvement. Where does one draw the line?
>
> * * * How is an upgrade or mod anywhere on the same continuum as
> deception?
> There ain't no line to draw between these two disparate points, IMHO.

**Sure there is. Service people always substitute devices and components
during service work.

>>
>>>
>>> Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip pretty softly,
>>> solid-state amps do not.
>>
>> **That is a false and oft-repeated claim. SOME tube amps clip softly and
>> SOME SS amps do not. You forget that I had one good channel, with which I
>> was able to measure and duplicate the performance from.
>>
>> What what happens if he changes the
>>> application and drives your kluge to clipping? Just a thought.
>>
>> **Question based on previous false assumption. Your question is,
>> therefore,
>> invalid.
>
> * * * You can parse a logical argument but keep flexible on ethical
> matters?

**YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to
remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If
my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to
it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp the
manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was
entirely happy with the result.

>>
>> You
>>> understand that you have given him an infinite warranty against even
>>> his own potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other equipment
>>> real or imagined that is touched by this amp.
>>
>> **In which universe do you imagine that such a warranty has to be
>> provided?
>> Look at the facts:
>>
>> * The amp is now MUCH more reliable than it was.
>
> * * * Ergo, the ends justify the means? Sometimes . . . But not here.
>
>> * The amp will enjoy a much longer life than it previously could.
>> * The now has protection against owner stupidity, which it did not
>> previously have.
>
> * * * Guess the owner was too stupid to explain what you did.

**The owner's talents lie elsewhere. He is far more talented in the law,
than I am. I would not call him stupid.

>>
>>>
>>> So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will the amp still
>>> play? That *just* might get him to question what is actually going on.
>>
>> **It may do so.
>>
>>>
>>> And, after all that, was it worth it?
>>
>> **Lemme see:
>>
>> * I have a happy client, who has since sent several other items to me for
>> service and has also recommended several other clients to me.
>>
>> Yes, it was well worth it. For all concerned.
>>
>> Normally, I don't need to perform such radical surgery on a tube (or any
>> other) amplifier. This was a unique situation. I addressed it
>> accordingly.
>>
>
> * * * *
>
> Let's sift through the bull****.
>
> Give me the contact information for your client.

**Short answer: No.


I'll ask him if he knew
> what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how
> happy he was with the info.

**It will never happen.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[[email protected]]

What is it with Ozzies? Trevor is spinning like a top on a pretty
obvious ethics issue, Phil fulminates in ignorance from his dung-heep,
and Patrick the superficially sanest of the bunch is congenitally
unable to leave well-enough alone.

Must be something in the water.... I am not sufficiently biblical to
attribute it to ancestry.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute a écrit :

> Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.


Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian
McCarthy... I feel sorry for you.



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
.....
>
> **BIG difference. You can't run a diesel engine on gasoline. For all
> intents and purposes, the amplifiers were the same as they came in. Except
> they now work. In any case, I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. Do
> you have a concept of what that means?
>

Yes, it means you fooled him, but
will give him his money back when and if he discovers your deceit.

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:

>
> **I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He
> did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound
> quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish.

* * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back a
SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.

* * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill Clinton's trying to parse
the meaning of "is," or denying that having oral sex was actually having
"sex." Why can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible position?

> **YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to
> remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If
> my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to
> it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp the
> manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was
> entirely happy with the result.

* * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written money-back guarantee
is a great thing if you had told the client what he was getting (and hence
what you were guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit with
roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and leaving the tubes, etc. was
pure deception IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?

>>
>> Let's sift through the bull****.
>>
>> Give me the contact information for your client.
>
> **Short answer: No.
>
>
> I'll ask him if he knew
>> what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report how
>> happy he was with the info.
>
> **It will never happen.

* * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a lawyer and he'd
probably sue you ass for fraud.

* * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.

Jon


>

[[email protected]]

>So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?

Not hardly, even at the margins.

What I am stating is that one's memory is deceitful, and heavily
influenced by expectations. If you expected that your AUS$200
investment would produce wonderful sound, then even merely adequate
sound would satisfy your need to be satisfied... Were you to hear an
A/B comparison, you would pick out the differences in a hummingbird
heartbeat. But as a stand-alone and influences only by your
expectations, the odds of perceiving something 'wrong' are slim. It is
even more likely that one would expect differences given a
'restoration', and so attribute changes to that restoration.

And in that light, I have to revise my original knife's edge
characterization to full-fledged fraud... the poor schmuck would not
even be inclined to question any audible differences, explaining them
away as 'because of the restoration'.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> I think Clyde is terrified that if it were to happen to
> him, he would be unable to discern the difference....

Clyde does have has this pathological fear of bias-controlled listening
tests.

> Taken from that point of view, his reaction is pretty
> obvious. But if it is not fraud, it certainly treads on
> the knife's edge of fraud.

More than anything else, I think he wants to be *right*.

> Now, 'fixed' is a strange word, and I haven't any idea
> what AUS$200 translates in off-the-shelf buying power
> these days,

A little or a lot depending on how wisely you spend it. the The AUS$ is
worth a little less than the the US$. Sorta like Canadian dollars.

> but speaking for myself, I would have told
> the owner that he had a choice... a 'fix' that would give
> him an operating pair of amps, or a restoration that
> would have given him what I _expect_ he thinks he paid
> for, but at a much higher price. If he did not ask you to
> explain the difference, well and good. If he did, and you
> did in accordance with his direct instructions, also well
> and good.

This anecdote tells me that some people are more interested in the aura of
tubes than the actual sound of tubes.

> But, I will also state that if he discovers the deception
> (and that it is) at _any_ point in the future, you are
> 100% obligated to provide him with a repair up to his
> full and initial expectations, and at no additional cost,
> not merely refund his money.

You can state what you will, and that does not make it true. Most service
agreements limit the providers liability to the value of the work done.

> By letting him get out of
> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
> that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.

> Keep one other mechanical item in mind. Tube amps clip
> pretty softly, solid-state amps do not. What what happens
> if he changes the application and drives your kluge to
> clipping?

First off, this may never happen, and secondly, the owner may never be able
to tell the difference. IME soft clipping is mostly hype.

>Just a thought. You understand that you have
> given him an infinite warranty against even his own
> potential for idiocy AND against any damage to other
> equipment real or imagined that is touched by this amp.

The warranty is limited to what the customer paid. Fair enough.

> So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
> the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question
> what is actually going on.

Will this ever happen?

Will the client care?

Isn't it true that there are already a goodly number of tubed power amps and
other equipment that will continue to work with one or more tubes pulled?

> And, after all that, was it worth it?

A happy customer is a thing of beauty. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message

> in article , Trevor Wilson
> at wrote on 12/22/05
> 4:57 AM:
>
>>
>> **I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or
>> AUS$200.00. He chose. He did not seem overly interested
>> in the minute detail, as long as the sound quality was
>> up to the standards he required. That was easy to
>> accomplish.

> * * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he
> was getting back a SS amp instead of a tube amp?

Dooh!

> That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter how you try to spin
> it.

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder?

> Shame you don't "get" it.

I think that Trevor got *it* very well.

> * * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill
> Clinton's trying to parse the meaning of "is," or denying
> that having oral sex was actually having "sex." Why
> can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
> instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible
> position?

Show me where Treveor screwed up?

>> **YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is
>> happy. And, just to remind you: I provided a WRITTEN
>> MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict. If my client
>> was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the
>> amp to it's original condition, free of charge, or for
>> $800.00 serviced the amp the manner YOU feel is better.
>> I stress YOU feel, because the client was entirely happy
>> with the result.

> * * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written
> money-back guarantee is a great thing if you had told the
> client what he was getting (and hence what you were
> guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit
> with roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and
> leaving the tubes, etc. was pure deception IN THE ABSENCE
> OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?

>>> Let's sift through the bull****.

>>> Give me the contact information for your client.

>> **Short answer: No.

Right, it's nobody's business but Trevor's.

>>> I'll ask him if he knew
>>> what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the
>>> group and report how happy he was with the info.

>> **It will never happen.

> * * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a
> lawyer and he'd probably sue you ass for fraud.

Oh my, such dire predictions.

> * * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of
> the man.

Integrity is well served by providing legitimate services for an honest
price.

All the tubies are upset because Trevor's anecdote shows that people do not
always discern what some audio partisans want them to discern.

This reminds me of Tom Nousaine's anecdote about substituting a Pioneer
receiver for a high end preamp and power amp in someone's system. Tom
didn't actually do the substitution, the owner's son did the deed. The owner
proudly showed off his high end electronics and obtained many favorable
comments about the sound quality.

Tom's anecdote is true - I was there at the time.

This anecdote also produced loud wails from the partisans of expensive
electronics.

The truth can hurt, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:35:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>All the tubies are upset because Trevor's anecdote shows that people do not
>always discern what some audio partisans want them to discern.
>
>This reminds me of Tom Nousaine's anecdote about substituting a Pioneer
>receiver for a high end preamp and power amp in someone's system. Tom
>didn't actually do the substitution, the owner's son did the deed. The owner
>proudly showed off his high end electronics and obtained many favorable
>comments about the sound quality.

Fortunately for the SS (pun intended) types, nobody has ever done the
deed on them. I have no doubt that the result would be the same.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >All the tubies

No, you may not inspect our "firehoses", Homoborg.

> Fortunately for the SS (pun intended) types, nobody has ever done the
> deed on them. I have no doubt that the result would be the same.

Maybe so, but it wouldn't "prove" anything because tube amps are always
more expensive than comparably powered SS ones.

Now, about that "debating trade" seminar......

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> By letting him get out of
>> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
>> that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

>It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.


You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's
PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and
look, Windows XP is still running"?

Remind me to never bring a PC to you for repair.


>> So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
>> the amp still play? That *just* might get him to question
>> what is actually going on.

>Will this ever happen?

>Will the client care?


That's not the point, and you know it.

Were it Jute or I who told a story like Trevor's, you'd be in our hair
all week long, and especially on Sunday.

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

"Trevor Wilson" > said:

>**I gave my client two choices. AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. I promised him
>that the cheaper choice would be at least as good and provided a money back
>gurarantee. He agreed to the cheaper option.


I think you know quite well what beef some people have with your
actions, Trevor.

The fact that your customer is happy with what you've done, has
nothing to do with the fact that you *didn't tell him all* about the
nature of the conversion.


Well, at least you have Arny on your side on this.
But not on the grounds that you think, he merely uses you to further
pursue his agenda.

--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> By letting him get out of
>>> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
>>> that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.

>> It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.

> You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of
> your client's PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he
> never stresses his PC and look, Windows XP is still
> running"?

Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an exact replacement
for the Pentium IV would cause major expense that was not reasonable, a
Celeron might be the most logical replacement.

The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it as a Pentium IV.

Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for Celerons, and justify it
because they are catering to the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the
markups that some take on high end audio, right? ;-)

> Remind me to never bring a PC to you for repair.

The shipping from the Netherlands would be a stopper.

>>> So, what happens if he pulls out a tube or three? Will
>>> the amp still play? That *just* might get him to
>>> question what is actually going on.
>
>> Will this ever happen?
>
>> Will the client care?

> That's not the point, and you know it.

The point is that the client wanted a working amp for a reasonable price and
Trevor provided one with a good guarantee.

> Were it Jute or I who told a story like Trevor's, you'd
> be in our hair all week long, and especially on Sunday.

I'm never in your hair, Sander. Let's just leave it at that.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an exact replacement
>for the Pentium IV would cause major expense that was not reasonable, a
>Celeron might be the most logical replacement.


But not without asking/advising the customer first, hm?


>The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it as a Pentium IV.


Agreed.


>Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for Celerons, and justify it
>because they are catering to the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the
>markups that some take on high end audio, right? ;-)


I wouldn't know, Arny, I'm not too familiar with either branche at the
moment.

--

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

[[email protected]]

Invincible Ignorance
Nailing Jello
Pounding Sand

No way you will get through. But you have learned whom not to believe
in any of his assertions, and who supports those assertions. Something
valuable in and of itself. Accept that as enough as that is all you
will get.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>> By letting him get out of
>>> your shop with those amps and withuout full-disclosure,
>>> that is exactly where you are on the ethics scale.
>
>>It's a matter of don't ask, don't tell.
>
>
> You think subbing the Pentium IV for a Celeron in one of your client's
> PCs is OK, because "he'll never notice, he never stresses his PC and
> look, Windows XP is still running"?

**Think of it this way, Sander: I've provided a Pentium IV, in place of an
Z80 and guaranteed (with a 100% money back) that all his software will run
and the thing will not crash.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Trevor Wilson at
> wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:
>
>>
>> **I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose. He
>> did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the sound
>> quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to accomplish.
>
> * * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back
> a
> SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
> how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.


**On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
like the originals.

>
> * * * Everyone in the USA knows the story of Bill Clinton's trying to
> parse
> the meaning of "is," or denying that having oral sex was actually having
> "sex." Why can't people admit that they screwed up and learn from it
> instead of foolishly trying to justify an indefensible position?
>
>> **YOU think what I did was unethical. My client is happy. And, just to
>> remind you: I provided a WRITTEN MONEY BACK GUARANTEE. I see no conflict.
>> If
>> my client was unhappy, I would have removed the mods, restored the amp to
>> it's original condition, free of charge, or for $800.00 serviced the amp
>> the
>> manner YOU feel is better. I stress YOU feel, because the client was
>> entirely happy with the result.
>
> * * * Truth trumps happiness, in my book. The written money-back
> guarantee
> is a great thing if you had told the client what he was getting (and hence
> what you were guaranteeing). Don't you see your designing the circuit with
> roll-off filters (to simulate a ****ty OPT) and leaving the tubes, etc.
> was
> pure deception IN THE ABSENCE OF DISCLOSURE AND CLIENT AGREEMENT?

**Decpetion? Possibly. Fraud? No. The client got what he wanted.

>
>>>
>>> Let's sift through the bull****.
>>>
>>> Give me the contact information for your client.
>>
>> **Short answer: No.
>>
>>
>> I'll ask him if he knew
>>> what was done to his amp. Then I'll get back to the group and report
>>> how
>>> happy he was with the info.
>>
>> **It will never happen.
>
> * * * Of course not. Sounds like your friend is a lawyer and he'd
> probably sue you ass for fraud.

**A judge, actually.

>
> * * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.

**In the real world, practicality is the norm. You'll learn that as you grow
up.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> Depends on the circumstances. If perchance obtaining an
>> exact replacement for the Pentium IV would cause major
>> expense that was not reasonable, a Celeron might be the
>> most logical replacement.

> But not without asking/advising the customer first, hm?

Of course. But Trevor did that in his way. Now, you are arguing over how he
did it.

>> The no-no would be to provide a Celeron but invoice it
>> as a Pentium IV.

> Agreed.

>> Some of my competitors charge Pentium-IV prices for
>> Celerons, and justify it because they are catering to
>> the "Carriage trade". That's sort of like the markups
>> that some take on high end audio, right? ;-)

> I wouldn't know, Arny, I'm not too familiar with either
> branch at the moment.

Yeah, sure. ;-)

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM:

>
> **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
> like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
> year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
> like the originals.

Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.
>
>>
>> * * * At the end of the day, integrity is the measure of the man.
>
> **In the real world, practicality is the norm. You'll learn that as you grow
> up.


Your definition of practicality is an ends-justifies-the-means ethic. The
problem is, I have grown up, and I don't approve of childish lies and overt
adult deception. If you develop a sense of ethics, you'll understand what I
mean. In the meantime, there is a gulf between us as wide as Lazarus and
the rich man.

Jon

[George M. Middius]

Jon Yaeger said:

> In the meantime, there is a gulf between us as wide as Lazarus and
> the rich man.

Christ.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> >So, you are opining that a ss amp would sound the same as a tube amp?
>
> Not hardly, even at the margins.
>
> What I am stating is that one's memory is deceitful, and heavily
> influenced by expectations. If you expected that your AUS$200
> investment would produce wonderful sound, then even merely adequate
> sound would satisfy your need to be satisfied... Were you to hear an
> A/B comparison, you would pick out the differences in a hummingbird
> heartbeat. But as a stand-alone and influences only by your
> expectations, the odds of perceiving something 'wrong' are slim. It is
> even more likely that one would expect differences given a
> 'restoration', and so attribute changes to that restoration.
>
> And in that light, I have to revise my original knife's edge
> characterization to full-fledged fraud... the poor schmuck would not
> even be inclined to question any audible differences, explaining them
> away as 'because of the restoration'.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA
>

That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> A happy customer is a thing of beauty. ;-)
>
>

Here are some of Arny's satisfied clients:

http://www.mrugly.com/employeebios.html

[Lionel]

Jon Yaeger wrote :

> If you develop a sense of ethics


IMHO you are confusing ethics and deontology.

Ethic : the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual
or a social group

Deontology : the theory or study of moral obligation.

IMHO, in the first case your answer to Trevor is insulting and automatically
bans you from Usenet ethical references. ;-)


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.

How about the two recordings we have of A. Krooger -- same? different?

[Pooh Bear]

Jon Yaeger wrote:

> in article , Trevor Wilson at
> wrote on 12/22/05 3:45 PM:
>
> >
> > **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which looked
> > like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45
> > year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They look and sound
> > like the originals.
>
> Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.

Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie said:

> Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Their value goes far beyond merely rattling the cages of society's
underlings. They are a proven 'borg-repellent. Oh wait, you wouldn't
know what that means, would you? Never mind, Poopie. Just don't go near
any of those nasty tube amps, and your BP will stay within organic
beings' parameters.

[Lionel]

Arthur "Clyde Slick" Tsechmeister wrote :

> That's what happens when you expect things to sound the same.....they do.


This explains why Arthur believes that he is a good musician.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote
in message
> Jon Yaeger wrote:
>
>> in article , Trevor Wilson
>> at wrote on 12/22/05
>> 3:45 PM:

>>> **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of
>>> tube amps, which looked like tube amps and sounded like
>>> tube amps, so he could proclaim that his 45 year old
>>> amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They
>>> look and sound like the originals.

>> Bull****. He got smoke and mirrors.

> Isn't that actually what *all* tube amps are about ?

Score!!!!

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Trevor Wilson at
>> wrote on 12/22/05 4:57 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> **I offered my client two choices; AUS$800.00 or AUS$200.00. He chose.
>>> He
>>> did not seem overly interested in the minute detail, as long as the
>>> sound
>>> quality was up to the standards he required. That was easy to
>>> accomplish.
>>
>> * * * Was one of those "minor details" the fact that he was getting back
>> a
>> SS amp instead of a tube amp? That ain't no minor detail, bud, no matter
>> how you try to spin it. Shame you don't "get" it.
>
>
> **On the contrary, I DO get it. He wanted a pair of tube amps, which
> looked like tube amps and sounded like tube amps, so he could proclaim
> that his 45 year old amps were still working. He got what he wanted. They
> look and sound like the originals.
>

well, he doesn't havea pair of tube amps anymore!

[paul packer]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:03:25 +0100, Lionel >
wrote:

>Dédé Jute a écrit :
>
>> Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.
>
>
>Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian
>McCarthy...

Shy?

[Lionel]

paul packer a écrit :
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:03:25 +0100, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dédé Jute a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>Trevor Wilson of Rage Audio, you are a deceitful fraudster.
>>
>>
>>Bob, seems to me that your new friend is just a shy version Brian
>>McCarthy...
>
>
> Shy?


Did he already phone to Trevor's neighbors ?



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...

>> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>> who would do something similar to that, whether
>> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>
>**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
>approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
>cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
>would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.

Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
>>> of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
>>> (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
>>> into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
>>> power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
>>> amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
>>> valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
>>> any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
>>> cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
>>> stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
>>> sounded so good.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>> a customer.
>>
>How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?

It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it
with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*.

Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that
this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the
guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:16:21 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and most
>>>> of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
>>>> (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
>>>> into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
>>>> power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each OP
>>>> amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
>>>> valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
>>>> any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
>>>> cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
>>>> stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had never
>>>> sounded so good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>>> a customer.
>>>
>>How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?
>
>It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it
>with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*.
>
>Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that
>this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the
>guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent.

And of course, the big test is, how willing he was to tell his
friend/customer The Judge exactly what he did.

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:03:02 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked
>>>> to
>>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
>>>> most
>>>> of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had three
>>>> (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the price
>>>> into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of small
>>>> power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of each
>>>> OP
>>>> amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left the
>>>> valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was in
>>>> any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full. The
>>>> cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the faulty
>>>> stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps had
>>>> never
>>>> sounded so good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>>> a customer.
>>>
>>How is it unethical, if he offered a full refund?
>
> It's unethical because he did not repair the tube amp, he replaced it
> with an entirely different device *without telling the customer*.
>
I conceded this point already, you must not have seen it.

> Now, I might very well derive some sly amusement from the fact that
> this improved the sound quality, but it's still unethical, even if the
> guarantee protects it from being legally fraudulent.
> --
>
I think I'd probably be laughing about it for a lvery long time.

I think it also demonstrates the placebo effect.

Yes, on reflection, I do agree he should have said that it would only still
be a tube amp if teh more expensive repairs were done. Do we know that the
customer was really all that big a tubve fanatic? Probably the best thing
for Trevor to do is inform the customer and let him decide now what he would
like, keep things as they are or restore it to a functioning tube amp. He
has after all made enough money of the other repairs to eat the cost by now.
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> **Funny you mention that, Stewart. A couple of years ago, I was asked to
>>> service two, stereo, 3 Watt (PP) valve amps. Unfortunately, apart from
>>> several buggered valves, all the electros, many of the resistors and
>>> most of the old plastic capacitors also required replacement, it had
>>> three (out of four) faulty output transformers. This would have put the
>>> price into the ridiculous area. Then, I had an idea. I put a pair of
>>> small power OP amps in each amp. I put a LF and HF filter in front of
>>> each OP amp and ran the whole shebang off the filament supplies. I left
>>> the valves in place and told the client that I had fixed his amp. If was
>>> in any way unhappy with the result, I would refund his money, in full.
>>> The cost, of course, was significantly lower than replacing all the
>>> faulty stuff. After he'd used it for a week, he reported that his amps
>>> had never sounded so good.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gross hypocricy noted.
>> Evidently its ok for you to 'defraud'
>> a customer.
>
> **Lemme examine the facts:
>
> * I was asked to service a very old pair of power amps.
> * The cost of the repair would have been around AUS$800.00.
> * I repaired both amps to the client's satisfaction, for around
> AUS$200.00.
> * I provided a no questions asked, written money back guarantee, if the
> client was not satisfied.
> * The client expressed the opinion that the amps had never sounded as
> good.
> * The client now has a pair of power amps which LOOK exactly like they did
> when they were submitted for service, but he now has a pair of power amps
> which are likely to provide faithful service for many decades.
>
> You call that 'fraud'?
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
If the customer left thinking he still had a tube amp, yes it's fraud,
guarantee or not, although nice.

I think it's funny that he didin't know the difference, but it's still
fraud.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>>> who would do something similar to that, whether
>>> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>>
>>**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
>>approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
>>cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
>>would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>>reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>
> Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......

**Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted
to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top
Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer.
Never had a day's trouble with it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:

>
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>>>> who would do something similar to that, whether
>>>> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>>>
>>> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
>>> approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
>>> cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
>>> would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>>> reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>
>> Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......
>
> **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted
> to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top
> Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
> She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer.
> Never had a day's trouble with it.
>


Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?

A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .

; -)

[Lionel]

Jon Yaeger a écrit :
> in article , Trevor Wilson at
> wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:
>
>
>>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>>>>>who would do something similar to that, whether
>>>>>for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>>>>
>>>>**That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
>>>>approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
>>>>cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
>>>>would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>>>>reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>>
>>>Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......
>>
>>**Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted
>>to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top
>>Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
>>She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer.
>>Never had a day's trouble with it.
>>
>
>
>
> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>
> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>
> ; -)

Here it's :

Q : do you know what the difference between hemorrhoid and a BMW. ?

A : only assholes have some...



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Trevor Wilson]

"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Trevor Wilson at
> wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:
>
>>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>>>>> who would do something similar to that, whether
>>>>> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>>>>
>>>> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile
>>>> (the
>>>> approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it
>>>> would
>>>> cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative,
>>>> which
>>>> would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>>>> reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>>
>>> Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......
>>
>> **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business,
>> wanted
>> to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft
>> top
>> Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
>> She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the
>> Beemer.
>> Never had a day's trouble with it.
>>
>
>
> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>
> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .

**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke to
him.

BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in
automobiles too.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know.

He could still be a prick, of course.

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/23/05 5:44 PM:

>
> "Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Trevor Wilson at
>> wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>>>>>> who would do something similar to that, whether
>>>>>> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>>>>>
>>>>> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile
>>>>> (the
>>>>> approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it
>>>>> would
>>>>> cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative,
>>>>> which
>>>>> would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>>>>> reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......
>>>
>>> **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business,
>>> wanted
>>> to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft
>>> top
>>> Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
>>> She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the
>>> Beemer.
>>> Never had a day's trouble with it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>>
>> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>
> **I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke to
> him.
>
> BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in
> automobiles too.
>

It's an old joke. Do doubt BMWs are fine cars. But in the 80's in the
States BMWs were often associated with Yuppies, Wannabees, and Type A
personalities. I swore I'd never buy one based upon the behavior of people
who owned them at the time. A big generalization, with all of its faults.

BTW, I know some really nice folks who have BMWs now.

It was just a joke!

[Trevor Wilson]

"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Trevor Wilson at
> wrote on 12/23/05 5:44 PM:
>
>>
>> "Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> in article , Trevor Wilson at
>>> wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>>>>>>> who would do something similar to that, whether
>>>>>>> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile
>>>>>> (the
>>>>>> approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>>>>>> reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......
>>>>
>>>> **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business,
>>>> wanted
>>>> to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft
>>>> top
>>>> Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the
>>>> Beemer.
>>>> She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the
>>>> Beemer.
>>>> Never had a day's trouble with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>>>
>>> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>>
>> **I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke
>> to
>> him.
>>
>> BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in
>> automobiles too.
>>
>
> It's an old joke. Do doubt BMWs are fine cars. But in the 80's in the
> States BMWs were often associated with Yuppies, Wannabees, and Type A
> personalities. I swore I'd never buy one based upon the behavior of people
> who owned them at the time. A big generalization, with all of its faults.
>
> BTW, I know some really nice folks who have BMWs now.
>
> It was just a joke!

**Sure. We have ******s owning Beemers over here too. We have the same joke,
told with a variety of different automobile types (including Beemers).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[[email protected]]

Actually BMWs are wannabe cars altogether. Although reasonably well
made (the 7-series is in deep trouble, however), they are in that
deadly middle ground between a Mercedes as a solid, conservative sedan,
and a Porsche as a solid sports-car. The term 'sports sedan' is an
oxymoron anyway as it is impossible to do both things well enough to
justify the combination.

Just my opinon.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Saab/Mercedes/VW Westie

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know.
>
> He could still be a prick, of course.

**Touché.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:21:04 -0500, Jon Yaeger >
wrote:

>in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:
>
>>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>>>>> who would do something similar to that, whether
>>>>> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>>>>
>>>> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile (the
>>>> approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it would
>>>> cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative, which
>>>> would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>>>> reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>>
>>> Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......
>>
>> **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business, wanted
>> to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft top
>> Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the Beemer.
>> She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the Beemer.
>> Never had a day's trouble with it.
>>
>
>
>Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>
>A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>
>; -)

Certainly a truism, but it scans better with Porsche.......... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:44:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
...

>> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>>
>> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>
>**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke to
>him.
>
>BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in
>automobiles too.

Ah yes, the M3. Fine car for Australia, where the roads are always
dry...........

OTOH, since they're also mostly straight, won't the big Holden with
the 'Vette engine blow its doors off?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 23 Dec 2005 15:33:47 -0800, " > wrote:

>Actually BMWs are wannabe cars altogether. Although reasonably well
>made (the 7-series is in deep trouble, however), they are in that
>deadly middle ground between a Mercedes as a solid, conservative sedan,
>and a Porsche as a solid sports-car. The term 'sports sedan' is an
>oxymoron anyway as it is impossible to do both things well enough to
>justify the combination.

Audi RS4 - accept no substitute!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Pooh Bear]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 23 Dec 2005 15:33:47 -0800, " > wrote:
>
> >Actually BMWs are wannabe cars altogether. Although reasonably well
> >made (the 7-series is in deep trouble, however), they are in that
> >deadly middle ground between a Mercedes as a solid, conservative sedan,
> >and a Porsche as a solid sports-car. The term 'sports sedan' is an
> >oxymoron anyway as it is impossible to do both things well enough to
> >justify the combination.
>
> Audi RS4 - accept no substitute!

Even the ever critical UK petrolhead programme Top Gear could only find nice
things to say about the RS4.

My own 'sports sedan' is the rather fine Saab 9000 - turbo of course. I
don't think anyone expects such a car to drive like a true 'sports car' but
can expect excellent performance from what is basically a luxury executive
car. It's by far the 'fastest car' I've ever owned and at times I'm still
blown away by it's phenomenal acceleration. It's a hoot to drive ! A car
that can bring a grin to your face. The 'hot' factory version was the Aero (
I nearly bought one ) that Jeremy Clarkson of the aforementioned Top Gear
had to admit was the ' ultimate Q car '. It can actually out-accelerate
certain Ferraris in overtaking ! 'Hot-rodded' versions go faster still but I
gather that trying to generate too much power e.g. > 350 bhp results in the
pistons melting ! Not bad for 2.3 litres I guess.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:44:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
> >>
> >> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
> >
> >**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke to
> >him.
> >
> >BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in
> >automobiles too.
>
> Ah yes, the M3. Fine car for Australia, where the roads are always
> dry...........
>
> OTOH, since they're also mostly straight, won't the big Holden with
> the 'Vette engine blow its doors off?

Is that the Monaro that we get over here badged as a Vauxhall ? Top Gear really
liked it. Primitive, but truly a genuine ' muscle car '.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:44:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>>>
>>> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>>
>>**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke
>>to
>>him.
>>
>>BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in
>>automobiles too.
>
> Ah yes, the M3. Fine car for Australia, where the roads are always
> dry...........

**Not always, Stew. Trust me on this. Mostly dry, would be the right term to
use.

>
> OTOH, since they're also mostly straight, won't the big Holden with
> the 'Vette engine blow its doors off?

**Probly. In a straight line. And I would be inclined to say that the
Commodore would be slightly ahead. I prefer the Ford offering though. More
sophistication. 4 Litre, in-line six, 24 Valve, with variable timing and a
nice little turbo, coupled to a six speed ZF box. Sweet. 240kW (Allegedly)
right off the showroom floor. I say allegedly, because the six can out
accelerate the larger, more powerful V8 from Ford, in the same body. Legend
has it that Ford is understating the power output of the six, so they can
still sell V8s. All for less than AUS$50k. Did I mention how smooth it is?
Give me an in-line six any day. Nothing compares. Well, 'cept for a rotary
or a V12. In fact, I drove a mate's Benz 320k and was surprised at how
primitive the engine felt. It's all happy days in Oz now. Ford and GM are at
each other's throats building halfway decent autos. As I understand it, GM
(Australia) is the only GM division still building an inexpensive RWD
independent suspension auto.

The M3 is still better.

I just watched a segment on the M5. The *******s couldn't stop grinning, as
they punted the thing around the Northern Territory (no speed limits, you
see).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:56:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:44:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>> >>
>> >> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>> >
>> >**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little joke to
>> >him.
>> >
>> >BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste in
>> >automobiles too.
>>
>> Ah yes, the M3. Fine car for Australia, where the roads are always
>> dry...........
>>
>> OTOH, since they're also mostly straight, won't the big Holden with
>> the 'Vette engine blow its doors off?
>
>Is that the Monaro that we get over here badged as a Vauxhall ? Top Gear really
>liked it. Primitive, but truly a genuine ' muscle car '.

Yes, but I don't know the Holden model designation. As you say, a
'muscle car' in the old tradition - but with modern brakes, tyres and
chassis.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:51:16 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On 23 Dec 2005 15:33:47 -0800, " > wrote:
>>
>> >Actually BMWs are wannabe cars altogether. Although reasonably well
>> >made (the 7-series is in deep trouble, however), they are in that
>> >deadly middle ground between a Mercedes as a solid, conservative sedan,
>> >and a Porsche as a solid sports-car. The term 'sports sedan' is an
>> >oxymoron anyway as it is impossible to do both things well enough to
>> >justify the combination.
>>
>> Audi RS4 - accept no substitute!
>
>Even the ever critical UK petrolhead programme Top Gear could only find nice
>things to say about the RS4.
>
>My own 'sports sedan' is the rather fine Saab 9000 - turbo of course. I
>don't think anyone expects such a car to drive like a true 'sports car' but
>can expect excellent performance from what is basically a luxury executive
>car. It's by far the 'fastest car' I've ever owned and at times I'm still
>blown away by it's phenomenal acceleration. It's a hoot to drive ! A car
>that can bring a grin to your face. The 'hot' factory version was the Aero (
>I nearly bought one ) that Jeremy Clarkson of the aforementioned Top Gear
>had to admit was the ' ultimate Q car '. It can actually out-accelerate
>certain Ferraris in overtaking ! 'Hot-rodded' versions go faster still but I
>gather that trying to generate too much power e.g. > 350 bhp results in the
>pistons melting ! Not bad for 2.3 litres I guess.

IIRC, many of those blown Saabs have the rather neat 'military power'
option which provides overboost of another 50 horses or so for
overtaking, but is only available for ten seconds or so to avoid the
overheating problem.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Trevor Wilson]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:56:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:44:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> >> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>>> >>
>>> >> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>>> >
>>> >**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little
>>> >joke to
>>> >him.
>>> >
>>> >BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste
>>> >in
>>> >automobiles too.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, the M3. Fine car for Australia, where the roads are always
>>> dry...........
>>>
>>> OTOH, since they're also mostly straight, won't the big Holden with
>>> the 'Vette engine blow its doors off?
>>
>>Is that the Monaro that we get over here badged as a Vauxhall ? Top Gear
>>really
>>liked it. Primitive, but truly a genuine ' muscle car '.
>
> Yes, but I don't know the Holden model designation.

**It's called the Monaro. GM(H) has been building two door Holdens, since
the late 1960s, with the moniker. Sadly, the Current Monaro is the last (for
now). Except for the stupid, fake air intakes on the bonnet (installed for
the US market demands), I rather like the styling.

As you say, a
> 'muscle car' in the old tradition - but with modern brakes, tyres and
> chassis.

**Pretty much.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Pooh Bear]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:56:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:44:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> >> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
> >>> >
> >>> >**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little
> >>> >joke to
> >>> >him.
> >>> >
> >>> >BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste
> >>> >in
> >>> >automobiles too.
> >>>
> >>> Ah yes, the M3. Fine car for Australia, where the roads are always
> >>> dry...........
> >>>
> >>> OTOH, since they're also mostly straight, won't the big Holden with
> >>> the 'Vette engine blow its doors off?
> >>
> >>Is that the Monaro that we get over here badged as a Vauxhall ? Top Gear
> >>really
> >>liked it. Primitive, but truly a genuine ' muscle car '.
> >
> > Yes, but I don't know the Holden model designation.
>
> **It's called the Monaro. GM(H) has been building two door Holdens, since
> the late 1960s, with the moniker. Sadly, the Current Monaro is the last (for
> now). Except for the stupid, fake air intakes on the bonnet (installed for
> the US market demands), I rather like the styling.
>
> As you say, a
> > 'muscle car' in the old tradition - but with modern brakes, tyres and
> > chassis.
>
> **Pretty much.

Agreed about the fake air intakes. Spoils the lines. Dumb Yanks ! ;-)

http://vauxhall.co.uk/showroom/search/brand.jhtml?brand=Monaro&vehicleType=Car

Graham

[dizzy]

Pooh Bear wrote:

>> > As you say, a
>> > 'muscle car' in the old tradition - but with modern brakes, tyres and
>> > chassis.
>>
>> **Pretty much.
>
>Agreed about the fake air intakes. Spoils the lines. Dumb Yanks ! ;-)
>
>http://vauxhall.co.uk/showroom/search/brand.jhtml?brand=Monaro&vehicleType=Car

It's hideous, any way you look at it. At least it's RWD... 8)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Woud you gentlemen please take all of this car talk somewhere else?
While it's all very interesting, I'm trying to discuss audio here.

Thank you!

[Andre Jute]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> Woud you gentlemen please take all of this car talk somewhere else?
> While it's all very interesting, I'm trying to discuss audio here.
>
> Thank you!

Don't worry about it, Sheesh. They're just doing their little me-too
bit after someone with first-hand experience of Australian muscle cars
(and at that when they were still cars for men who leave hairy
footprints, none of this wimpy ABS for fellows who need the electronics
to drive for them) laid down the law:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/5e584cc85c260d3b/42df3ebcea6bddad?q=Why+mercedes+Jute&rnum=2#42df3ebcea6bddad

These no-hopers soon run out of second-hand remarks the heard on
television car programs.

Rest easy.

Andre Jute
Let's hear the tubes!
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Andre Jute]

There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
what the rest of their fantasisies are but this is a newsgroup people's
children might read.

-- Andre Jute
Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/5e584cc85c260d3b/42df3ebcea6bddad?q=Why+mercedes+Jute&rnum=2#42df3ebcea6bddad

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> > "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:56:12 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:44:00 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >"Jon Yaeger" > wrote in message
> > >>> ...
> > >>>
> > >>> >> Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
> > >>> >
> > >>> >**I have a mate who owns an M3. I'll remember to relate your little
> > >>> >joke to
> > >>> >him.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >BTW: He happens to be one of the nicest people I know. Excellent taste
> > >>> >in
> > >>> >automobiles too.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ah yes, the M3. Fine car for Australia, where the roads are always
> > >>> dry...........
> > >>>
> > >>> OTOH, since they're also mostly straight, won't the big Holden with
> > >>> the 'Vette engine blow its doors off?
> > >>
> > >>Is that the Monaro that we get over here badged as a Vauxhall ? Top Gear
> > >>really
> > >>liked it. Primitive, but truly a genuine ' muscle car '.
> > >
> > > Yes, but I don't know the Holden model designation.
> >
> > **It's called the Monaro. GM(H) has been building two door Holdens, since
> > the late 1960s, with the moniker. Sadly, the Current Monaro is the last (for
> > now). Except for the stupid, fake air intakes on the bonnet (installed for
> > the US market demands), I rather like the styling.
> >
> > As you say, a
> > > 'muscle car' in the old tradition - but with modern brakes, tyres and
> > > chassis.
> >
> > **Pretty much.
>
> Agreed about the fake air intakes. Spoils the lines. Dumb Yanks ! ;-)
>
> http://vauxhall.co.uk/showroom/search/brand.jhtml?brand=Monaro&vehicleType=Car
>
> Graham

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 25 Dec 2005 06:56:31 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>Woud you gentlemen please take all of this car talk somewhere else?
>While it's all very interesting, I'm trying to discuss audio here.

Well don't feckin' read those posts, you whining ****!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 25 Dec 2005 14:50:08 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
>hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
>clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
>what the rest of their fantasisies are but this is a newsgroup people's
>children might read.
>
>-- Andre Jute
>Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.

Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................

BTW, we old guys do have things to teach the FWD generation. I spent a
happy weekend about six months ago on an old airfield, teaching a
34-year old colleague how to handle his new XKR on and beyond the
limit. I didn't charge him anything, considering the pair of rear
tyres it cost him was expense enough! :-)

Regrettably, the lesson may not have taken permanent root, since he
binned it spectacularly about three weeks later. :-(

Fair play to the boy though, he got back in the saddle - he bought a
'53 plate Merc CL55 AMG with the insurance money, to fill in while he
waits for his Aston V8 to be built next March. I may be in the wrong
job..................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Andre Jute]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 25 Dec 2005 14:50:08 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>
> >There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
> >hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
> >clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
> >what the rest of their fantasies are but this is a newsgroup people's
> >children might read.
> >
> >-- Andre Jute
> >Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.

And right on cue a knackered old man jumps in to present us with a case
study in arrested development. Next Pinkothicko will entertain us with
lies about all the young girls who hanker after his body... -- AJ

> Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
> dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
> the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
> straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
> to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................
>
> BTW, we old guys do have things to teach the FWD generation. I spent a
> happy weekend about six months ago on an old airfield, teaching a
> 34-year old colleague how to handle his new XKR on and beyond the
> limit. I didn't charge him anything, considering the pair of rear
> tyres it cost him was expense enough! :-)
>
> Regrettably, the lesson may not have taken permanent root, since he
> binned it spectacularly about three weeks later. :-(
>
> Fair play to the boy though, he got back in the saddle - he bought a
> '53 plate Merc CL55 AMG with the insurance money, to fill in while he
> waits for his Aston V8 to be built next March. I may be in the wrong
> job..................
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 26 Dec 2005 17:57:34 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 25 Dec 2005 14:50:08 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>
>> >There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
>> >hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
>> >clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
>> >what the rest of their fantasies are but this is a newsgroup people's
>> >children might read.
>> >
>> >-- Andre Jute
>> >Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.
>
>And right on cue a knackered old man jumps in to present us with a case
>study in arrested development. Next Pinkothicko will entertain us with
>lies about all the young girls who hanker after his body... -- AJ

That's the difference between us Jute - I don't write fantasy.

OTOH, define 'young'......... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Andre Jute]

Signal wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :
>
> >Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
> >dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
> >the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
> >straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
> >to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................
>
> Are you referring to the lilac Audi, as commonly driven by ladies?

Prunella Pinkerton has not one but two lilac Vorsprung durch Techniks
to match her pink lipstick on her prissy little rosebud mouth. The
other one is to drive while the first one is in the shop to have the
weekly crash repaired.

I love these guys, with their junior "executive" rubber bands cars and
their "knowledge" from watching "Top Gear" on television, who claim to
know better about real cars I've owned and driven and sometimes trashed
(the accountants got heartburn just seeing me walk past their office!)
when their limit was closer than mine.

Makes one wonder if our resident "engineers" got their audio
"engineering" from a television programme as well.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:47:32 +0000, Signal > wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :
>
>>Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
>>dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
>>the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
>>straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
>>to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................
>
>Are you referring to the lilac Audi, as commonly driven by ladies?

That's the one. Everyone graciously lets the silver-haired guy in the
lavender shopping trolley out of his country lane, whereupon I
disappear into the distance with a ripping howl of highly tuned engine
and precision gearchanges...... :-)

If I owned a black 911 - like the guy on the other side of the road
from me - I could sit there for ever!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:48:34 +0000, Signal > wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :
>
>>>> >There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
>>>> >hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
>>>> >clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
>>>> >what the rest of their fantasies are but this is a newsgroup people's
>>>> >children might read.
>>>> >
>>>> >-- Andre Jute
>>>> >Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.
>>>
>>>And right on cue a knackered old man jumps in to present us with a case
>>>study in arrested development. Next Pinkothicko will entertain us with
>>>lies about all the young girls who hanker after his body... -- AJ
>>
>>That's the difference between us Jute - I don't write fantasy.
>>
>>OTOH, define 'young'......... :-)
>
>In your case - under 50.

Ah well, in that case, the supply is considerable..........

One of the joys of English country life, the 'ladies of a certain age'
are pretty darned earthy!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 27 Dec 2005 15:43:52 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>
>Signal wrote:
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" emitted :
>>
>> >Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
>> >dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
>> >the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
>> >straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
>> >to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................
>>
>> Are you referring to the lilac Audi, as commonly driven by ladies?
>
>Prunella Pinkerton has not one but two lilac Vorsprung durch Techniks
>to match her pink lipstick on her prissy little rosebud mouth. The
>other one is to drive while the first one is in the shop to have the
>weekly crash repaired.

Only one pink one (they call it Akoya silver, I call it lavender),
which remains (touch wood) unscathed by any visits to real 4x4
territory, or by intimate penetrative contact with other road users.
The other one is a Dolomite Grey TT and is the property of SWMBO.

>I love these guys, with their junior "executive" rubber bands cars and
>their "knowledge" from watching "Top Gear" on television, who claim to
>know better about real cars I've owned and driven and sometimes trashed
>(the accountants got heartburn just seeing me walk past their office!)
>when their limit was closer than mine.

Jute, you don't love anyone, and you're older, more knackered, and
possessed of *vastly* more fantasies than any of us.

>Makes one wonder if our resident "engineers" got their audio
>"engineering" from a television programme as well.

I presumed that you got yours from 'Dick and Jane' books......

Same place you got your 'writing skills'........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Trevor Wilson]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On 25 Dec 2005 14:50:08 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>
>>There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
>>hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
>>clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
>>what the rest of their fantasisies are but this is a newsgroup people's
>>children might read.
>>
>>-- Andre Jute
>>Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.
>
> Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
> dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
> the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
> straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
> to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................

**I don't know which "Ozzy crate" you refer to, but I'll chase down the data
on the Monaro, when I am able. One of the local automotive TV shows has been
pitting a few sports cars around a local race track. The Monaro has held up
pretty well. Within a second of a Carrera and a WRX STi.

>
> BTW, we old guys do have things to teach the FWD generation. I spent a
> happy weekend about six months ago on an old airfield, teaching a
> 34-year old colleague how to handle his new XKR on and beyond the
> limit. I didn't charge him anything, considering the pair of rear
> tyres it cost him was expense enough! :-)
>
> Regrettably, the lesson may not have taken permanent root, since he
> binned it spectacularly about three weeks later. :-(
>
> Fair play to the boy though, he got back in the saddle - he bought a
> '53 plate Merc CL55 AMG with the insurance money, to fill in while he
> waits for his Aston V8 to be built next March. I may be in the wrong
> job..................

**Those Aston Martins are the most drop dead gorgeous cars to come out the
UK, since the McLaren.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:30:34 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> On 25 Dec 2005 14:50:08 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>
>>>There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
>>>hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
>>>clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
>>>what the rest of their fantasisies are but this is a newsgroup people's
>>>children might read.
>>>
>>>-- Andre Jute
>>>Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.
>>
>> Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
>> dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
>> the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
>> straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
>> to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................
>
>**I don't know which "Ozzy crate" you refer to, but I'll chase down the data
>on the Monaro, when I am able. One of the local automotive TV shows has been
>pitting a few sports cars around a local race track. The Monaro has held up
>pretty well. Within a second of a Carrera and a WRX STi.

I'm talking about the biggest, meanest Holden you could buy back in
the '70s, which appears to be the time frame Jute is rabbiting on
about. Of course, it's most likely just another of his fantasies. He
is indeed a legend* in his own mind. 100 mph average from Adelaide to
Darwin - yeah, riiigghht.........

*Legend - half history, half fantasy.............

Incidentally, since Jute insists on 'Top Gear' references, I note that
the current Monaro VXR, with likely 100 horses more than the '70s
muscle car, and vastly superior brakes and chassis, went round the Top
Gear test track in the hands of the Stig in 1:30.1 seconds. My
lavender shopping trolley that Jute loves to sneer at, went round in
1:30.4, not too shabby for a mere 250 horses......

(For those unfamilar with VAG badge engineering, the MkV Golf R32 is
identical to the current Audi A3 Quattro Sport 3.2 under the Audi's
much prettier skin).

>> BTW, we old guys do have things to teach the FWD generation. I spent a
>> happy weekend about six months ago on an old airfield, teaching a
>> 34-year old colleague how to handle his new XKR on and beyond the
>> limit. I didn't charge him anything, considering the pair of rear
>> tyres it cost him was expense enough! :-)
>>
>> Regrettably, the lesson may not have taken permanent root, since he
>> binned it spectacularly about three weeks later. :-(
>>
>> Fair play to the boy though, he got back in the saddle - he bought a
>> '53 plate Merc CL55 AMG with the insurance money, to fill in while he
>> waits for his Aston V8 to be built next March. I may be in the wrong
>> job..................
>
>**Those Aston Martins are the most drop dead gorgeous cars to come out the
>UK, since the McLaren.

Indeed, although I personally prefer the DB9. Can't afford either of
them... :-(

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message


> Incidentally, since Jute insists on 'Top Gear'
> references, I note that the current Monaro VXR, with
> likely 100 horses more than the '70s muscle car, and
> vastly superior brakes and chassis, went round the Top
> Gear test track in the hands of the Stig in 1:30.1
> seconds. My lavender shopping trolley that Jute loves to
> sneer at, went round in 1:30.4, not too shabby for a mere
> 250 horses......

BTW, Top Gear is a great show. Shows up on cable here - Discovery Channel.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:30:34 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 25 Dec 2005 14:50:08 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
>>>>hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
>>>>clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
>>>>what the rest of their fantasisies are but this is a newsgroup people's
>>>>children might read.
>>>>
>>>>-- Andre Jute
>>>>Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.
>>>
>>> Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
>>> dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
>>> the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
>>> straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
>>> to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................
>>
>>**I don't know which "Ozzy crate" you refer to, but I'll chase down the
>>data
>>on the Monaro, when I am able. One of the local automotive TV shows has
>>been
>>pitting a few sports cars around a local race track. The Monaro has held
>>up
>>pretty well. Within a second of a Carrera and a WRX STi.
>
> I'm talking about the biggest, meanest Holden you could buy back in
> the '70s, which appears to be the time frame Jute is rabbiting on
> about.

**Ah. That would be an old 350 cu in Monaro. Pretty quick in it's day. About
130MPH, as I recall. A real handful 'round corners though. Back in those
days, there were three quick cars: The aformentioned 350 cu in Monaro, the
351 GTHO (Handling Options) Falcon (fastest 4 door sedan on the planet,
during the 1960s) and, my favourite, the 265 cu in, hemi 6 cyl Charger
(Chrysler). Six Webers. Mmmmmm. Smaller engine, but it gave the V8s a real
run for their money. Anyway, a couple of years ago, they ran an orginal GTHO
Falcon against a modern Falcon, 'round a race track. The modern Falcon
clobbered the GTHO, even with a 100kW power drop over the old car.

Of course, it's most likely just another of his fantasies. He
> is indeed a legend* in his own mind. 100 mph average from Adelaide to
> Darwin - yeah, riiigghht.........

**It's possible (but unlikely). Back in those days, there weren't as many
coppers. The roads are pretty straight. Even now, over much of the NT, there
are no speed limits.

>
> *Legend - half history, half fantasy.............
>
> Incidentally, since Jute insists on 'Top Gear' references, I note that
> the current Monaro VXR, with likely 100 horses more than the '70s
> muscle car, and vastly superior brakes and chassis, went round the Top
> Gear test track in the hands of the Stig in 1:30.1 seconds. My
> lavender shopping trolley that Jute loves to sneer at, went round in
> 1:30.4, not too shabby for a mere 250 horses......

**Indeed, but:

* There is likely to be a weight penalty to the Monaro.
* That suggests your car is hardly 'blowing the doors off the Monaro'.

>
> (For those unfamilar with VAG badge engineering, the MkV Golf R32 is
> identical to the current Audi A3 Quattro Sport 3.2 under the Audi's
> much prettier skin).
>
>>> BTW, we old guys do have things to teach the FWD generation. I spent a
>>> happy weekend about six months ago on an old airfield, teaching a
>>> 34-year old colleague how to handle his new XKR on and beyond the
>>> limit. I didn't charge him anything, considering the pair of rear
>>> tyres it cost him was expense enough! :-)
>>>
>>> Regrettably, the lesson may not have taken permanent root, since he
>>> binned it spectacularly about three weeks later. :-(
>>>
>>> Fair play to the boy though, he got back in the saddle - he bought a
>>> '53 plate Merc CL55 AMG with the insurance money, to fill in while he
>>> waits for his Aston V8 to be built next March. I may be in the wrong
>>> job..................
>>
>>**Those Aston Martins are the most drop dead gorgeous cars to come out the
>>UK, since the McLaren.
>
> Indeed, although I personally prefer the DB9. Can't afford either of
> them... :-(

**Sniff. Me either.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>BTW, Top Gear is a great show. Shows up on cable here - Discovery Channel.

Eh? I could not find it on their site... Only certain times of the
year?

http://dsc.discovery.com/tvlistings/a2z.jsp?channel=DSC&clik=dsc_leftnav

[dizzy]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:47:32 +0000, Signal > wrote:
>>
>>Are you referring to the lilac Audi, as commonly driven by ladies?
>
>That's the one. Everyone graciously lets the silver-haired guy in the
>lavender shopping trolley out of his country lane, whereupon I
>disappear into the distance with a ripping howl of highly tuned engine
>and precision gearchanges...... :-)
>
>If I owned a black 911 - like the guy on the other side of the road
>from me - I could sit there for ever!

I have a fast car... '98 Toyota Supra TT (Twin Turbo) with the
6-speed Getrag manual. 320HP stock, estimated 350HP with aftermarket
exhaust system w/high-flow cat.

Fun toy. It's got a surprisingly good sound system, too! 8)

[Andre Jute]

Here are two knackered old men talking about my ton-up average between
Adelaide and Darwin. Below I shall consider their errors of
presumption:

Pinkerton:
> Of course, it's most likely just another of his fantasies. He
> > is indeed a legend* in his own mind. 100 mph average from Adelaide to
> > Darwin - yeah, riiigghht.........

Wilson
> **It's possible (but unlikely). Back in those days, there weren't as many
> coppers. The roads are pretty straight. Even now, over much of the NT, there
> are no speed limits.

Here are some predictable errors you guys are making. These errors are
predictable because of your character faults.

NOT PAYING ATTENTION, POSSIBLY LACK OF COMPREHENSION OF PLAIN ENGLISH
Wilson and Pinkerton both think I averaged 100mph between Adelaide and
Darwin (and back, actually, you silly mickeymousers) in a Holden
Monaro, a Chevrolet by any other name. Not so. I stated clearly that I
did it in a Ford GTHO, then the fastest saloon car in the world.
Wilson, who lives in Australia, is furthermore apparently unaware that
the cattletrains (big double and triple supercharged trucks with
several trailers) *routinely* at that time set 80mph averages through
the Northern Territory. It was not uncommon to come up behind a big
Mercedes truck hauling a cattle train at around the ton...

NOT IN MY BACKYARD
Pinkothicko lives in a mickey mouse country, Britain. He automatically
assumes that anything that cannot happen in his own backyard cannot
happen anywhere else. It is an error the unsophisticated street corner
gangs on these newsgroups commit all the time.

SMALL MEN WITH SMALL MINDS
Both Pinkothicko and the Wilson the Fraud are small men, Pinkerton a
lifelong salaryman and Wilson a small trader. The outlook of such small
men is best illustrated in the corollary:

THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR ENEMY, THEY ARE YOUR BEST FACILITATORS
Small men and the lower classes have this in common with the criminal
classes: they see the police automatically as their enemies, a forceful
obstruction to their fantasies. Socially well adjusted people like me
view the police as their friends. For instance, when in South Africa I
set a similar record (100mph over 1010 miles from the statue of Jan van
Riebeeck on the Foreshore in Cape Town to the statue of Paul Kruger in
the centre of Pretoria in a Jaguar Mk 2) the police cleared the road
for me. I simply told the prime minister, in whose office I had a
sinecure as a part-time youth advisor, that the AA would time the
attempt (I can't help it if he thought that meant they sanctioned
it...), who told the justice minister, who told the cops, who did as
they were told and were happy for their salaries and their security in
not having to chase me. Equally in Australia, the cops didn't try to
stop me; far from it. I would stop at the first cop car I saw whether
they chased me or not and, if they didn't recognize me as the guy who
taught them pursuit driving (I was sentenced to do this by a magistrate
with a cruel sense of humour -- it is a version of what Americans call
community service), I would wait until they radioed ahead to other cops
to identify me, and then ask them to telephone and radio ahead to have
the trucks held on the infrequent but very, very dangerous crossroads
so that I wasn't delayed.

You mickeymousers weren't there. I was. You get your facts from
motoring progammes on television. I used those cars as you would like,
if you had the balls, to use whatever little shopping trolleys you now
drive, except I didn't bother with the daily wash and polish. Envy and
spite and denial won't give you your youth back, and anyway you never
had the balls (or for that matter the skill and concentration and
courage) to do what I did.

With utmost contempt for such little men with such cramped minds.

Andre Jute

Here is the full knocking correspondence of two knackered old men who
did nothing notable even when they were young:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:30:34 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On 25 Dec 2005 14:50:08 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
> >>>>hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
> >>>>clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
> >>>>what the rest of their fantasisies are but this is a newsgroup people's
> >>>>children might read.
> >>>>
> >>>>-- Andre Jute
> >>>>Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.
> >>>
> >>> Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
> >>> dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
> >>> the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
> >>> straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
> >>> to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................
> >>
> >>**I don't know which "Ozzy crate" you refer to, but I'll chase down the
> >>data
> >>on the Monaro, when I am able. One of the local automotive TV shows has
> >>been
> >>pitting a few sports cars around a local race track. The Monaro has held
> >>up
> >>pretty well. Within a second of a Carrera and a WRX STi.
> >
> > I'm talking about the biggest, meanest Holden you could buy back in
> > the '70s, which appears to be the time frame Jute is rabbiting on
> > about.
>
> **Ah. That would be an old 350 cu in Monaro. Pretty quick in it's day. About
> 130MPH, as I recall. A real handful 'round corners though. Back in those
> days, there were three quick cars: The aformentioned 350 cu in Monaro, the
> 351 GTHO (Handling Options) Falcon (fastest 4 door sedan on the planet,
> during the 1960s) and, my favourite, the 265 cu in, hemi 6 cyl Charger
> (Chrysler). Six Webers. Mmmmmm. Smaller engine, but it gave the V8s a real
> run for their money. Anyway, a couple of years ago, they ran an orginal GTHO
> Falcon against a modern Falcon, 'round a race track. The modern Falcon
> clobbered the GTHO, even with a 100kW power drop over the old car.
>
> Of course, it's most likely just another of his fantasies. He
> > is indeed a legend* in his own mind. 100 mph average from Adelaide to
> > Darwin - yeah, riiigghht.........
>
> **It's possible (but unlikely). Back in those days, there weren't as many
> coppers. The roads are pretty straight. Even now, over much of the NT, there
> are no speed limits.
>
> >
> > *Legend - half history, half fantasy.............
> >
> > Incidentally, since Jute insists on 'Top Gear' references, I note that
> > the current Monaro VXR, with likely 100 horses more than the '70s
> > muscle car, and vastly superior brakes and chassis, went round the Top
> > Gear test track in the hands of the Stig in 1:30.1 seconds. My
> > lavender shopping trolley that Jute loves to sneer at, went round in
> > 1:30.4, not too shabby for a mere 250 horses......
>
> **Indeed, but:
>
> * There is likely to be a weight penalty to the Monaro.
> * That suggests your car is hardly 'blowing the doors off the Monaro'.
>
> >
> > (For those unfamilar with VAG badge engineering, the MkV Golf R32 is
> > identical to the current Audi A3 Quattro Sport 3.2 under the Audi's
> > much prettier skin).
> >
> >>> BTW, we old guys do have things to teach the FWD generation. I spent a
> >>> happy weekend about six months ago on an old airfield, teaching a
> >>> 34-year old colleague how to handle his new XKR on and beyond the
> >>> limit. I didn't charge him anything, considering the pair of rear
> >>> tyres it cost him was expense enough! :-)
> >>>
> >>> Regrettably, the lesson may not have taken permanent root, since he
> >>> binned it spectacularly about three weeks later. :-(
> >>>
> >>> Fair play to the boy though, he got back in the saddle - he bought a
> >>> '53 plate Merc CL55 AMG with the insurance money, to fill in while he
> >>> waits for his Aston V8 to be built next March. I may be in the wrong
> >>> job..................
> >>
> >>**Those Aston Martins are the most drop dead gorgeous cars to come out the
> >>UK, since the McLaren.
> >
> > Indeed, although I personally prefer the DB9. Can't afford either of
> > them... :-(
>
> **Sniff. Me either.
>
>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au

[Pooh Bear]

dizzy wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> >BTW, Top Gear is a great show. Shows up on cable here - Discovery Channel.
>
> Eh? I could not find it on their site... Only certain times of the
> year?
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/tvlistings/a2z.jsp?channel=DSC&clik=dsc_leftnav

Discovery have been umming and ahhing it seems about showing another series.
Last I heard it was on again. The US show doesn't have 'star in a reasonably
priced car' though. Probably 'cos you wouldn't know most of the ppl ?

Check out here.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/
http://www.topgear.com/

Graham

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:24:02 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:47:32 +0000, Signal > wrote:
>>>
>>>Are you referring to the lilac Audi, as commonly driven by ladies?
>>
>>That's the one. Everyone graciously lets the silver-haired guy in the
>>lavender shopping trolley out of his country lane, whereupon I
>>disappear into the distance with a ripping howl of highly tuned engine
>>and precision gearchanges...... :-)
>>
>>If I owned a black 911 - like the guy on the other side of the road
>>from me - I could sit there for ever!
>
>I have a fast car... '98 Toyota Supra TT (Twin Turbo) with the
>6-speed Getrag manual. 320HP stock, estimated 350HP with aftermarket
>exhaust system w/high-flow cat.
>
>Fun toy. It's got a surprisingly good sound system, too! 8)

A very fine car, should have sold *much* better than it did. You have
to admire the cunning way that the massive rear spoiler doesn't
obstruct rear vision!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:39:24 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:

>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:30:34 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 25 Dec 2005 14:50:08 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There is something ineffably sad about knackered old men pushing 60
>>>>>hankering after a rorty muscle car that would have killed such careless
>>>>>clowns as they are even when their reflexes were young. You can tell
>>>>>what the rest of their fantasisies are but this is a newsgroup people's
>>>>>children might read.
>>>>>
>>>>>-- Andre Jute
>>>>>Experienced. Fast. Alive. Whole.
>>>>
>>>> Considering that you are already past 60, that's kinda pathetic,
>>>> dontcha think? I OTOH actually drive a vehicle which would have taken
>>>> the doors off your old Ozzy crate on anything other than a dead
>>>> straight road (and mebbe that, too). We will leave our gentle readers
>>>> to consider who is mired in fantasyland.......................
>>>
>>>**I don't know which "Ozzy crate" you refer to, but I'll chase down the
>>>data
>>>on the Monaro, when I am able. One of the local automotive TV shows has
>>>been
>>>pitting a few sports cars around a local race track. The Monaro has held
>>>up
>>>pretty well. Within a second of a Carrera and a WRX STi.
>>
>> I'm talking about the biggest, meanest Holden you could buy back in
>> the '70s, which appears to be the time frame Jute is rabbiting on
>> about.
>
>**Ah. That would be an old 350 cu in Monaro. Pretty quick in it's day. About
>130MPH, as I recall. A real handful 'round corners though. Back in those
>days, there were three quick cars: The aformentioned 350 cu in Monaro, the
>351 GTHO (Handling Options) Falcon (fastest 4 door sedan on the planet,
>during the 1960s) and, my favourite, the 265 cu in, hemi 6 cyl Charger
>(Chrysler). Six Webers. Mmmmmm. Smaller engine, but it gave the V8s a real
>run for their money. Anyway, a couple of years ago, they ran an orginal GTHO
>Falcon against a modern Falcon, 'round a race track. The modern Falcon
>clobbered the GTHO, even with a 100kW power drop over the old car.
>
> Of course, it's most likely just another of his fantasies. He
>> is indeed a legend* in his own mind. 100 mph average from Adelaide to
>> Darwin - yeah, riiigghht.........
>
>**It's possible (but unlikely). Back in those days, there weren't as many
>coppers. The roads are pretty straight. Even now, over much of the NT, there
>are no speed limits.
>
>>
>> *Legend - half history, half fantasy.............
>>
>> Incidentally, since Jute insists on 'Top Gear' references, I note that
>> the current Monaro VXR, with likely 100 horses more than the '70s
>> muscle car, and vastly superior brakes and chassis, went round the Top
>> Gear test track in the hands of the Stig in 1:30.1 seconds. My
>> lavender shopping trolley that Jute loves to sneer at, went round in
>> 1:30.4, not too shabby for a mere 250 horses......
>
>**Indeed, but:
>
>* There is likely to be a weight penalty to the Monaro.
>* That suggests your car is hardly 'blowing the doors off the Monaro'.

Agreed, but I wasn't referring to the Monaro, but to the crate that
Jute claims to have been driving way back when. As you pointed out
above, the old 350 wasn't even close in performance to either of the
modern cars. I've had my 160mph speedo right off the clock.......

OK, TomTom satnav said 157, but the speedo was right off the scale!

Er, allegedly, on a private road, of course............ :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 28 Dec 2005 20:10:52 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>Here are two knackered old men talking about my ton-up average between
>Adelaide and Darwin. Below I shall consider their errors of
>presumption:
>
>Pinkerton:
>> Of course, it's most likely just another of his fantasies. He
>> > is indeed a legend* in his own mind. 100 mph average from Adelaide to
>> > Darwin - yeah, riiigghht.........
>
>Wilson
>> **It's possible (but unlikely). Back in those days, there weren't as many
>> coppers. The roads are pretty straight. Even now, over much of the NT, there
>> are no speed limits.
>
>Here are some predictable errors you guys are making. These errors are
>predictable because of your character faults.
>
>NOT PAYING ATTENTION, POSSIBLY LACK OF COMPREHENSION OF PLAIN ENGLISH
>Wilson and Pinkerton both think I averaged 100mph between Adelaide and
>Darwin (and back, actually, you silly mickeymousers) in a Holden
>Monaro, a Chevrolet by any other name. Not so. I stated clearly that I
>did it in a Ford GTHO, then the fastest saloon car in the world.

OK, aplogies for my error, so let's take a look:

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=629

I've picked the ultimate Phase III version, as Jute would no doubt
*claim* to have used this one, if any other were mentioned.........

0-60 in 6.4 seconds, topping out at 142 mph. Very impressive for the
'70s, but distinctly average nowadays, being matched by the new Ford
Focus ST, with a 2.5 litre Volvo engine....................

My own little beast is mechanically identical to the MkV Golf R32,
which Autocar clocked at 6.0 for the 0-60 dash, 15.2 to 100, and tops
out at 154 (I've seen a GPS-verified 157, but that was one-way).

Interesting that the Ford and Audi weigh about the same, the Ford has
a (claimed, and at the flywheel in those days) 130 more horses, yet
the Audi is 0.4 seconds faster to 60, and tops out at 22 mph more. I
guess that's progress for you!

Note that the current Monaro VXR has just a few more horses from a
similarly-sized engine, but these are independently measured and are
at the gearbox output shaft. OTOH, it weighs another 100 kilos but
does 0-60 in 5.3 seconds, which suggests something a little doubtful
about the GTHO claimed power.

>Wilson, who lives in Australia, is furthermore apparently unaware that
>the cattletrains (big double and triple supercharged trucks with
>several trailers) *routinely* at that time set 80mph averages through
>the Northern Territory. It was not uncommon to come up behind a big
>Mercedes truck hauling a cattle train at around the ton...

Indeed, but Adelaide isn't in the NT, and road trains have
professional drivers.....

>NOT IN MY BACKYARD
>Pinkothicko lives in a mickey mouse country, Britain. He automatically
>assumes that anything that cannot happen in his own backyard cannot
>happen anywhere else. It is an error the unsophisticated street corner
>gangs on these newsgroups commit all the time.

I also worked in Arizona for a couple of years in the mid-80s, so I'm
pretty familar with big cube muscle cars and their real-world
abilities, even on long straight roads (the one you see all the time
in adverts is one I used to drive on a regular basis - truly boring).
All your fantastical lies and polemic will not alter the basic facts
of the matter. That old Ford might have been hot stuff in its day, but
it's small beer nowadays, and you certainly never maintained a road
avearage of 100mph from Adelaide to Darwin and back.

I learned my high-speed driving skills doing road rallies, and I know
what terminal speeds are needed to maintain high *average* speeds,
even in deserted areas with long straights.

>SMALL MEN WITH SMALL MINDS
>Both Pinkothicko and the Wilson the Fraud are small men, Pinkerton a
>lifelong salaryman and Wilson a small trader. The outlook of such small
>men is best illustrated in the corollary:

Actually, I spent ten years or so in consultancy, I still have a
limited company in addition to my salaried work, and you are a
semi-retired academic, failed author and ex-advertising guy, so you
don't have much of a place to stand here.

>THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR ENEMY, THEY ARE YOUR BEST FACILITATORS
>Small men and the lower classes have this in common with the criminal
>classes: they see the police automatically as their enemies, a forceful
>obstruction to their fantasies. Socially well adjusted people like me
>view the police as their friends. For instance, when in South Africa I
>set a similar record (100mph over 1010 miles from the statue of Jan van
>Riebeeck on the Foreshore in Cape Town to the statue of Paul Kruger in
>the centre of Pretoria in a Jaguar Mk 2) the police cleared the road
>for me. I simply told the prime minister, in whose office I had a
>sinecure as a part-time youth advisor, that the AA would time the
>attempt (I can't help it if he thought that meant they sanctioned
>it...), who told the justice minister, who told the cops, who did as
>they were told and were happy for their salaries and their security in
>not having to chase me. Equally in Australia, the cops didn't try to
>stop me; far from it. I would stop at the first cop car I saw whether
>they chased me or not and, if they didn't recognize me as the guy who
>taught them pursuit driving (I was sentenced to do this by a magistrate
>with a cruel sense of humour -- it is a version of what Americans call
>community service), I would wait until they radioed ahead to other cops
>to identify me, and then ask them to telephone and radio ahead to have
>the trucks held on the infrequent but very, very dangerous crossroads
>so that I wasn't delayed.

I doubt if even the redoubtable Baron Munchausen himself would have
tried on such a fantastical fairy tale, Jute. You really are a sorry
excuse for burned-out failure.....................

>You mickeymousers weren't there. I was. You get your facts from
>motoring progammes on television. I used those cars as you would like,
>if you had the balls, to use whatever little shopping trolleys you now
>drive, except I didn't bother with the daily wash and polish. Envy and
>spite and denial won't give you your youth back, and anyway you never
>had the balls (or for that matter the skill and concentration and
>courage) to do what I did.

Actually, my little lavender shopping trolley is significantly faster
than those old crates you *claim* you used to drive, and I'm not one
of the new FWD generation, I already know how to hold a car sideways
for pretty much as long as I want to. *Really* fast driving of course
is much more Roger Clark than Sideways Sam.............

>With utmost contempt for such little men with such cramped minds.

Another perfect projection from the sad old man who put the bitter
into Angostura.................

>Andre Jute
>
>Here is the full knocking correspondence of two knackered old men who
>did nothing notable even when they were young:

I survived my youth, which was a pretty notable achievement, had you
known me then.....

BTW, interesting that you failed to observe this snippet from that
post by Trevor:

>>Anyway, a couple of years ago, they ran an orginal GTHO
>> Falcon against a modern Falcon, 'round a race track. The modern Falcon
>> clobbered the GTHO, even with a 100kW power drop over the old car.

It's called progress. I'm sure you managed to frighten yourself
thoroughly, and loved that roaring V8, but you weren't *really* going
very fast.............

>> Of course, it's most likely just another of his fantasies. He
>> > is indeed a legend* in his own mind. 100 mph average from Adelaide to
>> > Darwin - yeah, riiigghht.........
>>
>> **It's possible (but unlikely). Back in those days, there weren't as many
>> coppers. The roads are pretty straight. Even now, over much of the NT, there
>> are no speed limits.

Indeed, but do you think Jute actually did it? :-)

Consider how often he is caught simply making things up, and how many
'glittering careers' he claims to have had. The latest fantasy is his
claim to have taught pursuit driving to policemen as part of a
'community service' sentence! You hafta larf........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Margaret von B.]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:21:04 -0500, Jon Yaeger >
> wrote:
>
>>in article , Trevor Wilson at
wrote on 12/23/05 3:13 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:22:58 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't want to do busines with someone
>>>>>> who would do something similar to that, whether
>>>>>> for an amp, a car, or a household appliance.
>>>>>
>>>>> **That would be your choice. If I had (say) a 45 year old automobile
>>>>> (the
>>>>> approximate age of the amplifiers) and my mechanic told me that it
>>>>> would
>>>>> cost $8,000.00 to rebuild the engine, but offered me an alternative,
>>>>> which
>>>>> would provide the same functionality, safety and higher levels of
>>>>> reliability for $2,000.00, I know what I would choose.
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes - the Triumph Stag, most of which now have Rover engines......
>>>
>>> **Reminds me of an old girlfriend, who, after selling her business,
>>> wanted
>>> to buy a new (second hand) car. "Will I buy one of those gorgeous, soft
>>> top
>>> Triumph Stags, or a BMW?" I told her it was a no-brainer. Buy the
>>> Beemer.
>>> She calls me now and again to thank me for my advice. She bought the
>>> Beemer.
>>> Never had a day's trouble with it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>>
>>A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>>
>>; -)
>
> Certainly a truism, but it scans better with Porsche.......... :-)
> --


The REAL cars are now in Dallas.

http://www.rufautocentre.com/index.asp

So can we please switch the discussion to high performance vehicles. :-)

No, I do not have one. However, I've driven a client's 550 hp version and it
was quite a bit faster than my Navigator. But it'll be for sale as soon as
his 650 hp arrives. He's in his 20's...

These cars have been a real hit in TX.


Cheers,

Margaret

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:12:10 GMT, "Margaret von B."
> wrote:

>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:21:04 -0500, Jon Yaeger >
>> wrote:

>>>Q. Do you know what the difference is between a porcupine and a BMW?
>>>
>>>A. On the porcupine, the pricks are on the outside . . . .
>>>
>>>; -)
>>
>> Certainly a truism, but it scans better with Porsche.......... :-)
>> --
>
>The REAL cars are now in Dallas.
>
>http://www.rufautocentre.com/index.asp
>
>So can we please switch the discussion to high performance vehicles. :-)

Oh dear, Max Power for Porsches.........................

>No, I do not have one. However, I've driven a client's 550 hp version and it
>was quite a bit faster than my Navigator. But it'll be for sale as soon as
>his 650 hp arrives. He's in his 20's...
>
>These cars have been a real hit in TX.

They do go wonderfully well with a six-inch belt buckle, ostrich boots
and a 'you might want to consider thanking your lucky stars that
you're in Texas' T-shirt..............................

Texans *are* familiar with porcupines, are they not? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Ruud Broens]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
: On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:24:02 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
:
: >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
: >
: >>On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:47:32 +0000, Signal > wrote:
: >>>
: >>>Are you referring to the lilac Audi, as commonly driven by ladies?
: >>
: >>That's the one. Everyone graciously lets the silver-haired guy in the
: >>lavender shopping trolley out of his country lane, whereupon I
: >>disappear into the distance with a ripping howl of highly tuned engine
: >>and precision gearchanges...... :-)
: >>
: >>If I owned a black 911 - like the guy on the other side of the road
: >>from me - I could sit there for ever!
: >
: >I have a fast car... '98 Toyota Supra TT (Twin Turbo) with the
: >6-speed Getrag manual. 320HP stock, estimated 350HP with aftermarket
: >exhaust system w/high-flow cat.
: >
: >Fun toy. It's got a surprisingly good sound system, too! 8)
:
: A very fine car, should have sold *much* better than it did. You have
: to admire the cunning way that the massive rear spoiler doesn't
: obstruct rear vision!
:
: --
:
: Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

So what do you think of the upcoming Toyota Volta :-) ?
... "The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and chassis, making it
extremely light --under 2900 pounds. The sports car also uses a
6-cylinder version of Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes
more than 400 hp. "

Rudy

[dizzy]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:24:02 GMT, dizzy > wrote:
>>
>>I have a fast car... '98 Toyota Supra TT (Twin Turbo) with the
>>6-speed Getrag manual. 320HP stock, estimated 350HP with aftermarket
>>exhaust system w/high-flow cat.
>>
>>Fun toy. It's got a surprisingly good sound system, too! 8)
>
>A very fine car, should have sold *much* better than it did.

The strong Yen of the mid-90's kind of killed it. By the time of the
late-90's correction (Toyota reduced the price by $10k in '97), it was
too late.

It was a tough sell in the US even at the lower price . Say "I have a
Corvette", and everyone knows. Say "I have a Toyota Supra" and they
think "Huh? Is that some FWD economy car?"

>You have
>to admire the cunning way that the massive rear spoiler doesn't
>obstruct rear vision!

The spoiler's ugly, though. I took it off years ago. I never did
care for it, but the clincher was driving side-by-side down a highway
next to (what appeared to be) a bog-standard Civic 4-door, on which
was affixed an almost identical wing. I was embarrassed!

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:50:58 +0100, "Ruud Broens" >
wrote:

>So what do you think of the upcoming Toyota Volta :-) ?
>.. "The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and chassis, making it
>extremely light --under 2900 pounds. The sports car also uses a
>6-cylinder version of Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes
>more than 400 hp. "

I think it's a crock of ****. What's the point of putting a
carbon-fibre body on a pile of lead-acid batteries? It's pretty much
as risible as seeing some fat Californian on a $5,000 mountain bike
made entirely of carbon-fibre and Titanium..................

Lotus makes 'extremely light' cars using conventional materials - it
takes *two* of them to weigh the same as a Volta. That way, a 200HP
engine will provide the same performance while using half the fuel.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> BTW, Top Gear is a great show. Shows up on cable here -
>> Discovery Channel.
>
> Eh? I could not find it on their site... Only certain
> times of the year?

I guess. It's off right now. Fun while it lasted!

[Margaret von B.]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:50:58 +0100, "Ruud Broens" >
> wrote:
>
>>So what do you think of the upcoming Toyota Volta :-) ?
>>.. "The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and chassis, making it
>>extremely light --under 2900 pounds. The sports car also uses a
>>6-cylinder version of Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes
>>more than 400 hp. "
>
> I think it's a crock of ****. What's the point of putting a
> carbon-fibre body on a pile of lead-acid batteries? It's pretty much
> as risible as seeing some fat Californian on a $5,000 mountain bike
> made entirely of carbon-fibre and Titanium..................
>
> Lotus makes 'extremely light' cars using conventional materials - it
> takes *two* of them to weigh the same as a Volta. That way, a 200HP
> engine will provide the same performance while using half the fuel.
>

The point is that Toyota sells hundreds of cars, and probably thousands, for
every one car Lotus sells. And Toyota does not go bankrupt every few years.

Cheers,

Margaret

[dizzy]

Very funny post! 8)


flipper wrote:

>Hehe. Yeah. I used to have an original issue Lotus Europa, way back
>when, and it's a bit easier to make an "extremely light" car when it's
>little more than a hopped up go cart with a plastic shell tacked on.
>And you can save a significant amount of weight by dispensing with
>frilly extras like sound deadening, carpeting, padded dashes,
>automatic choke, bonnet up latch/springs, roll up windows, adjustable
>seat frames, and the like. One terrific bonus was you never had to
>worry about someone changing your seat position because, besides no
>one over 5' 10" being able to get in the thing and most everyone else
>too scared to try, there was nothing to adjust..
>
>It had two trunks though, one in the front and one in the rear,
>although the front was pretty much occupied with things traditionally
>found in an engine compartment, like wiper motor, radiator, rad fan,
>etc, plus spare tire and the prudently user supplied mechanic's tool
>kit so you could reassemble the thing where ever it decided to come
>apart.
>
>Speaking of which, there are distinct advantages to manual everything.
>Take the time the bicycle hand brake cable they used for a throttle
>linkage decided to lock up. I simply pulled out the prudently user
>supplied mechanic's tool kit, disconnected the cable, readjusted the
>manual choke for maximum throttle advance before kicking in the
>butterfly, and drove home with the manual choke control. Folks with
>'automatic everything' would be stuck driving around in windows up
>air-conditioned leather seat carpeted luxury listening to the 5 disc
>CD changer not having any fun at all.
>
>Super fun little car with, as the saying went, "en engine where the
>rear seats used to be" and perfect for a Walter Mitty complex. That 4
>banger right at your ear drums sounded just like a B-17 so wherever
>you went you were "on a mission" and at 140 on any side street the
>cops subbed nicely for ME-109s. Bogie at 2 o'clock!
>
>The only real drawbacks were the 40 degree blind spots on either side
>and the unfortunate placement of a 3 inch slit they called the rear
>window right at normal U.S. car headlight height. There'd be this
>blinding flash of halogen light like a super nova went off inside the
>passenger compartment and you had to scrunch down, no mean feat
>considering the seat cushion (the one luxury) was already sitting on
>the floorboard, to get a workable angle bounce through the rear view
>mirror so one could identify the rollers on top the police car. Could
>have used a tail gunner.
>
>Fortunately that only happened once and he simply wanted me to clear
>the high speed lane, what with us at double the speed limit slowing
>things down and all.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:15:30 -0600, flipper > wrote:

>Hehe. Yeah. I used to have an original issue Lotus Europa, way back
>when, and it's a bit easier to make an "extremely light" car when it's
>little more than a hopped up go cart with a plastic shell tacked on.

It's always fun to see someone complaining about a cutting-edge
high-tech car company by using a 40 year old example..........

The plain fact is that the Toyota Volta is a joke, you can't call a
car 'extremely light' when it weighs 2900 lbs, no matter how much
carbon-fibre you've thrown at the bodywork!

BTW, you didn't mention the weight of that old Europa of yours - it
was less than 1500 lbs, with a steel chassis, steel wheels, iron-block
engine and standard GRP body, no magic materials..................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Andre Jute]

flipper wrote:

> Hehe. Yeah. I used to have an original issue Lotus Europa, way back
> when, and it's a bit easier to make an "extremely light" car when it's
> little more than a hopped up go cart with a plastic shell tacked on.
> And you can save a significant amount of weight by dispensing with
> frilly extras like sound deadening, carpeting, padded dashes,
> automatic choke, bonnet up latch/springs, roll up windows, adjustable
> seat frames, and the like. One terrific bonus was you never had to
> worry about someone changing your seat position because, besides no
> one over 5' 10" being able to get in the thing and most everyone else
> too scared to try, there was nothing to adjust..

A girlfriend bought a new Lotus Elan 130, the two plus two legless
midgets version. On day one she pulled the door closed and ripped the
doorhandle right out. The "trim" was a piece of cardboard that tore
when I flicked it with my fingernail. The doorhandle was attached only
to the "trim". Even Polski Fiats were better made than that! She kept
the Lotus two days before I explained to the dealer that, if he didn't
want me to smear him right out of business, he would give her back
every penny she paid and in addition, as a punishment for misleading
her that the Lotus was a real car, give her a stiff discount on a used
Porsche 356 cabriolet as well.

That a used Porsche was the same price as a new Lotus tells you
everything you want to know about the relative value of the cars.

Mind you, whenever I drove a Lotus belonging to someone else who
lovingly kept it going, I loved the experience, but never enough to
interfere with my (intermittent) love affair with the ever-reliable
Zuffenhausen Flyer. "A sports car should be as light as is reliable but
no lighter," said Albert Einstein, the noted sports car and
interstellar exponent, and he was right.

The Lotus was a good car for people who lived in lanes not further than
ten miles from a commuter train station -- and who could afford half a
dozen Lotuses so one at least was always available to drive to the
station. Beyond ten miles, if the Lotus still hadn't fallen to pieces,
the buzzing and small niggles outweighed the roadholding pleasure.

> the prudently user supplied mechanic's tool
> kit so you could reassemble the thing where ever it decided to come
> apart.

ROTFLOL.

You are clearly an unsuitable customer for a British "sports" car,
Flipper. You want to work on your masochism. Lots.

Andre Jute
A big 'un will always beat a small 'un -- Charles Darwin

> It had two trunks though, one in the front and one in the rear,
> although the front was pretty much occupied with things traditionally
> found in an engine compartment, like wiper motor, radiator, rad fan,
> etc, plus spare tire and the prudently user supplied mechanic's tool
> kit so you could reassemble the thing where ever it decided to come
> apart.
>
> Speaking of which, there are distinct advantages to manual everything.
> Take the time the bicycle hand brake cable they used for a throttle
> linkage decided to lock up. I simply pulled out the prudently user
> supplied mechanic's tool kit, disconnected the cable, readjusted the
> manual choke for maximum throttle advance before kicking in the
> butterfly, and drove home with the manual choke control. Folks with
> 'automatic everything' would be stuck driving around in windows up
> air-conditioned leather seat carpeted luxury listening to the 5 disc
> CD changer not having any fun at all.
>
> Super fun little car with, as the saying went, "en engine where the
> rear seats used to be" and perfect for a Walter Mitty complex. That 4
> banger right at your ear drums sounded just like a B-17 so wherever
> you went you were "on a mission" and at 140 on any side street the
> cops subbed nicely for ME-109s. Bogie at 2 o'clock!
>
> The only real drawbacks were the 40 degree blind spots on either side
> and the unfortunate placement of a 3 inch slit they called the rear
> window right at normal U.S. car headlight height. There'd be this
> blinding flash of halogen light like a super nova went off inside the
> passenger compartment and you had to scrunch down, no mean feat
> considering the seat cushion (the one luxury) was already sitting on
> the floorboard, to get a workable angle bounce through the rear view
> mirror so one could identify the rollers on top the police car. Could
> have used a tail gunner.
>
> Fortunately that only happened once and he simply wanted me to clear
> the high speed lane, what with us at double the speed limit slowing
> things down and all.

[Lionel]

Dédé Jute a écrit :



> A girlfriend bought a new Lotus Elan 130, the two plus two legless
> midgets version.


If she really loves you, she'd better purchase an ambulance... :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:50:58 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
> > wrote:
>
>> So what do you think of the upcoming Toyota Volta :-) ?
>> .. "The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and
>> chassis, making it extremely light --under 2900 pounds.
>> The sports car also uses a 6-cylinder version of
>> Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes
>> more than 400 hp. "
>
> I think it's a crock of ****. What's the point of putting
> a carbon-fibre body on a pile of lead-acid batteries?


Got a reference for that item about the Toyota Volta being based on
lead-acid batteries?

Based on what I know about Toyota hybrids, I'd expect NiCad.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:15:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:50:58 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what do you think of the upcoming Toyota Volta :-) ?
>>>> .. "The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and
>>>> chassis, making it extremely light --under 2900 pounds.
>>>> The sports car also uses a 6-cylinder version of
>>>> Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes
>>>> more than 400 hp. "
>>>
>>> I think it's a crock of ****. What's the point of
>>> putting a carbon-fibre body on a pile of lead-acid
>>> batteries?
>>
>>
>> Got a reference for that item about the Toyota Volta
>> being based on lead-acid batteries?
>>
>> Based on what I know about Toyota hybrids, I'd expect
>> NiCad.
>>
>
> NiMH would be a better guess considering that Toyota
> formed a joint venture with Panasonic Batteries to make
> the things and it enjoys a 50% share of the overall HEV
> battery market.

Interesting!

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:15:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:50:58 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> So what do you think of the upcoming Toyota Volta :-) ?
>>> .. "The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and
>>> chassis, making it extremely light --under 2900 pounds.
>>> The sports car also uses a 6-cylinder version of
>>> Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes
>>> more than 400 hp. "
>>
>> I think it's a crock of ****. What's the point of putting
>> a carbon-fibre body on a pile of lead-acid batteries?
>
>
>Got a reference for that item about the Toyota Volta being based on
>lead-acid batteries?
>
>Based on what I know about Toyota hybrids, I'd expect NiCad.

Given their claims of 'extremely light' for this tubby beast, wouldn't
you have expected Lithium-ion? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:15:42 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:50:58 +0100, "Ruud Broens"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what do you think of the upcoming Toyota Volta :-) ?
>>>> .. "The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and
>>>> chassis, making it extremely light --under 2900 pounds.
>>>> The sports car also uses a 6-cylinder version of
>>>> Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes
>>>> more than 400 hp. "
>>>
>>> I think it's a crock of ****. What's the point of
>>> putting a carbon-fibre body on a pile of lead-acid
>>> batteries?
>>
>>
>> Got a reference for that item about the Toyota Volta
>> being based on lead-acid batteries?
>>
>> Based on what I know about Toyota hybrids, I'd expect
>> NiCad.

> Given their claims of 'extremely light' for this tubby
> beast, wouldn't you have expected Lithium-ion? :-)

Well, *anything* modern but lead-acid.

Agreed that Lithium Ion has a big advantage for weight, but may have issues
with number of charge/discharge cycles.

http://www.buchmann.ca/chap2-page2.asp