How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.

[Fella]

"How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."

Who said this? :)

[Pooh Bear]

Fella wrote:

> "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
>
> Who said this? :)

Me probably.

Graham

[Fella]

Pooh Bear wrote:

>
> Fella wrote:
>
>
>>"How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
>>
>>Who said this? :)
>
>
> Me probably.


No, you did not. I can reveal that much that it was a borg that said it
though. Not the silly one. The dumb borg.

Although it was a borg note that no ABX's or DBT's are put forth as any
prerequisites. You just can "listen" and notice that not all QSC amps
are the same. Although you do this with or without a DBT or ABX, your
observation is reliable this time around. You see, the borg tell when
and where if one can listen with eyes open or not and when and where
this is reliable critical listening.

> Graham
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message


> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?

Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound and installed-sound
markets, probably just about everybody has heard a QSC amp, but just not
known it.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>
> Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound and
> installed-sound markets, probably just about everybody has heard a QSC
> amp, but just not known it.
One more reason I don't go to live rock concerts.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>
>> Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound
>> and installed-sound markets, probably just about
>> everybody has heard a QSC amp, but just not known it.

Not noticing the power amp being used would of course be a good thing.

> One more reason I don't go to live rock concerts.

Last few times I went to classical and contemporary non-pop concerts there
was SR. In some cases it was for eveything including the music, in other
cases it was just for announcments. Probablility that QSC amps were in the
signal chain: high.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Fella" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
> >>
> >> Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound
> >> and installed-sound markets, probably just about
> >> everybody has heard a QSC amp, but just not known it.
>
> Not noticing the power amp being used would of course be a good thing.
>
> > One more reason I don't go to live rock concerts.
>
> Last few times I went to classical and contemporary non-pop concerts there
> was SR. In some cases it was for eveything including the music, in other
> cases it was just for announcments. Probablility that QSC amps were in the
> signal chain: high.

The only excuses that I can think of for SR at classical concerts are
for outdoor events/large venues (like Pavaroti in a sports arena) or for
announcements.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>>>
>>>> Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound
>>>> and installed-sound markets, probably just about
>>>> everybody has heard a QSC amp, but just not known it.
>>
>> Not noticing the power amp being used would of course be
>> a good thing.
>>
>>> One more reason I don't go to live rock concerts.
>>
>> Last few times I went to classical and contemporary
>> non-pop concerts there was SR. In some cases it was for
>> eveything including the music, in other cases it was
>> just for announcments. Probablility that QSC amps were
>> in the signal chain: high.

> The only excuses that I can think of for SR at classical
> concerts are for outdoor events/large venues (like
> Pavaroti in a sports arena) or for announcements.

Another common reason - using vocalists who are acceptable if not desirable
to the audience but not classically trained.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
> >>>>
> >>>> Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound
> >>>> and installed-sound markets, probably just about
> >>>> everybody has heard a QSC amp, but just not known it.
> >>
> >> Not noticing the power amp being used would of course be
> >> a good thing.
> >>
> >>> One more reason I don't go to live rock concerts.
> >>
> >> Last few times I went to classical and contemporary
> >> non-pop concerts there was SR. In some cases it was for
> >> eveything including the music, in other cases it was
> >> just for announcments. Probablility that QSC amps were
> >> in the signal chain: high.
>
> > The only excuses that I can think of for SR at classical
> > concerts are for outdoor events/large venues (like
> > Pavaroti in a sports arena) or for announcements.
>
> Another common reason - using vocalists who are acceptable if not desirable
> to the audience but not classically trained.

Do you mean, for example, pop/jazz singers performing with a classical
orchestra? I wouldn't call those "classical concerts", but I get your
point.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 11:36 am
Email: Jenn >

>The only excuses that I can think of for SR at classical concerts are
>for outdoor events/large venues (like Pavaroti in a sports arena) or for
>announcements.

When the Yo Yo Ma played at a wedding at the local Legion they had him
going through an old Shure Vocalmaster.

The sound was heavenly.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> From: Jenn
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 11:36 am
> Email: Jenn >
>
> >The only excuses that I can think of for SR at classical concerts are
> >for outdoor events/large venues (like Pavaroti in a sports arena) or for
> >announcements.
>
> When the Yo Yo Ma played at a wedding at the local Legion they had him
> going through an old Shure Vocalmaster.

Why?

>
> The sound was heavenly.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 1:00 pm
Email: Jenn >

>> When the Yo Yo Ma played at a wedding at the local Legion they had him
>> going through an old Shure Vocalmaster.

>Why?

Otherwise all of the clinking glasses, laughter and calls for toasts
would've drowned out the sound of his cello.

As it was, the people involved in the Grand March could hardly hear
him.

[[email protected]]

Fella wrote:
> "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
>
> Who said this? :)

I did. Your point?

The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein
who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC
amps. An opinion without any substantiation. This person did not
mention if there was another amp that the QSC was being compared to, or
which model it was. I was attempting to find out if there might have
been a reason why they might have found the amp in question to be
faulty.

Was it just bull****, IOW a claim made from not comparing the QSC to
another amp in DBT, or perhaps the amp in question might have actually
had a problem.

Given that there was no other information other than the claim the amps
sounded bad and they were to stupid to state the conditions of the
evaluation, I was simply trying to find out how it was done.

[Fella]

wrote:
> Fella wrote:
>
>>"How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
>>
>>Who said this? :)
>
>
> I did. Your point?
>
> The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein
> who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC
> amps. An opinion without any substantiation. This person did not
> mention if there was another amp that the QSC was being compared to, or
> which model it was. I was attempting to find out if there might have
> been a reason why they might have found the amp in question to be
> faulty.
>

Don't lie. The reason you asked that is because you are *too* s*too*pid.
You are so dumb that if you should ever get a flash of self-awareness
you would confess to being "to dumb" to even learn your own mother tounge.

But I digress, back to you putting your foot in your mouth, on another
occasion you lie .. err.. give another reason why you wrote those
unfortunate two sentences above. Do tell us duhmickey, what was that
other lie .. errr.. reason you put forth on that other occasion. Save us
some googling. If you wont I´ll paste it up here in a jiffy. :)

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>>>
>>> Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound
>>> and installed-sound markets, probably just about
>>> everybody has heard a QSC amp, but just not known it.
>
> Not noticing the power amp being used would of course be a good thing.
>
>> One more reason I don't go to live rock concerts.
>
> Last few times I went to classical and contemporary non-pop concerts there
> was SR. In some cases it was for eveything including the music, in other
> cases it was just for announcments. Probablility that QSC amps were in
> the signal chain: high.
>
Not at the concert hall I attend: Verizon Hall at The Kimmel Center,
Philadelphia's new replacement for The Academy of Music.

Of course, I understand that where you live, discrimination, taste, and the
large endowments to satisfy them at a World Class level are not available to
the degree of the large coastal cities: New York, Philadelphia, Washington,
San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Your perspective is acceptable for a
provincial area. Here in Philadelphia, a QSC amplifier would not be found.
Indeed, in Verizon Hall, we do not use sound reinforcement. Many millions of
dollars were spent to make it unnecessary.

[EE]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Fella wrote:
>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
>>
>> Who said this? :)
>
> I did. Your point?
>
> The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein
> who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC
> amps.

They sound like ****, but since you live in a toilet, it would be hard for
you to tell.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Robert Morein" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >
> >> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> "Fella" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
> >>>
> >>> Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound
> >>> and installed-sound markets, probably just about
> >>> everybody has heard a QSC amp, but just not known it.
> >
> > Not noticing the power amp being used would of course be a good thing.
> >
> >> One more reason I don't go to live rock concerts.
> >
> > Last few times I went to classical and contemporary non-pop concerts there
> > was SR. In some cases it was for eveything including the music, in other
> > cases it was just for announcments. Probablility that QSC amps were in
> > the signal chain: high.
> >
> Not at the concert hall I attend: Verizon Hall at The Kimmel Center,
> Philadelphia's new replacement for The Academy of Music.
>
> Of course, I understand that where you live, discrimination, taste, and the
> large endowments to satisfy them at a World Class level are not available to
> the degree of the large coastal cities: New York, Philadelphia, Washington,
> San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Your perspective is acceptable for a
> provincial area. Here in Philadelphia, a QSC amplifier would not be found.
> Indeed, in Verizon Hall, we do not use sound reinforcement. Many millions of
> dollars were spent to make it unnecessary.

One of the best concert halls in this country is within an hour's drive
of Arny's location. I wonder if he has ever been there.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> One of the best concert halls in this country is within an hour's drive
> of Arny's location. I wonder if he has ever been there.

I believe he went once, but when he asked if they sold ear plugs, they
tossed him out.

"Fella" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote:
>> Fella wrote:
>>
>>>"How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
>>>
>>>Who said this? :)
>>
>>
>> I did. Your point?
>>
>> The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein
>> who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC
>> amps. An opinion without any substantiation. This person did not
>> mention if there was another amp that the QSC was being compared to, or
>> which model it was. I was attempting to find out if there might have
>> been a reason why they might have found the amp in question to be
>> faulty.
>>
>
> Don't lie. The reason you asked that is because you are *too* s*too*pid.
> You are so dumb that if you should ever get a flash of self-awareness you
> would confess to being "to dumb" to even learn your own mother tounge.
>
> But I digress, back to you putting your foot in your mouth, on another
> occasion you lie .. err.. give another reason why you wrote those
> unfortunate two sentences above.

What's unfortunate about trying to find out more about a vague review of an
amp?

Do tell us duhmickey, what was that
> other lie .. errr.. reason you put forth on that other occasion. Save us
> some googling. If you wont I´ll paste it up here in a jiffy. :)

Well since you asked so nicely dickless, the other reasons were because
there are differnt types of QSC amps, some listed as Class AB some as class
H, which as Trevor will point out is just a variation of Class AB. Some
people believe that different classes of amplification sound different. I
simply wanted to find out more about the reasons one would have for thinking
they heard something bad from one of the QSC amps.

I'm sure you will continue to make up yor own story about my reasoning on
this matter, just as you did when you couldn't tell your own amps apart,
even though you know one is better than the other.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Robert Morein" > wrote:
>
>
> One of the best concert halls in this country is within an hour's drive
> of Arny's location. I wonder if he has ever been there.

Yes, he was there. He even had the church choir packed into the
back of the wagon.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: Jenn
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 1:00 pm
> Email: Jenn >
>
>>> When the Yo Yo Ma played at a wedding at the local Legion they had him
>>> going through an old Shure Vocalmaster.
>
>>Why?
>
> Otherwise all of the clinking glasses, laughter and calls for toasts
> would've drowned out the sound of his cello.
>
> As it was, the people involved in the Grand March could hardly hear
> him.
>

Nobody paid attention?
He was just background music?
Sounds like more of your bull****.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> One of the best concert halls in this country is within
> an hour's drive of Arny's location. I wonder if he has
> ever been there.

Many times - I've even heard my daughter and eldest son play there several
times.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > One of the best concert halls in this country is within
> > an hour's drive of Arny's location. I wonder if he has
> > ever been there.
>
> Many times - I've even heard my daughter and eldest son play there several
> times.

Cool! Do you mean the Fisher or Hill Auditorium?

[EE]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>
>> "How many QSC amps have you listened to?
>
> Given the market penetration of QSC into the live sound and
> installed-sound markets, probably just about everybody has heard a QSC
> amp, but just not known it.

This probably occurred when I was twisting my fingers in my ears and
speculating about wax buildup.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick - view profile
Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 8:33 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>Nobody paid attention?
>He was just background music?
>Sounds like more of your bull****.

You're right. When Yo Yo Ma played at the local Legion, it was for a
Bar Mitzvah.

My bad...

( And *I'm* the dour one...) LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick - view profile
> Date: Fri, Feb 17 2006 8:33 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>Nobody paid attention?
>>He was just background music?
>>Sounds like more of your bull****.
>
> You're right. When Yo Yo Ma played at the local Legion, it was for a
> Bar Mitzvah.
>
> My bad...
>
> ( And *I'm* the dour one...) LOL!
>

Bull**** IS the word.

A high end Bar Mitzvah, one that could afford Yo Yo Ma, would
NOT be held in an American Legion hall!
A legion hall is a very unlikely venue for ANY Bar Mitzvah




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:11 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>Bull**** IS the word.
>
>>A high end Bar Mitzvah, one that could afford Yo Yo Ma, would
>>NOT be held in an American Legion hall!
>>A legion hall is a very unlikely venue for ANY Bar Mitzvah
>
> LMAO!
>
>> ( And *I'm* the dour one...) LOL!
>
> Lighten up, slick, before you pop the pins holding your depends on.
>

Still ducking the issue, I see.
We're waiting for your next bull**** story, anonymous one.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 11:13 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>Still ducking the issue, I see.

What issue is that?

>We're waiting for your next bull**** story, anonymous one.

Um, slick, if you're referring to Yo Yo Ma, I did not expect anybody to
believe that he actually played at a wedding (or Bar Mitzvah) in a
Legion hall through a Shure Vocalmaster.

Christ, dour one, wake up.

Why do you insist on making yourself look so stupid?

[Fella]

wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Fella wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
>>>>
>>>>Who said this? :)
>>>
>>>
>>>I did. Your point?
>>>
>>>The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein
>>>who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC
>>>amps. An opinion without any substantiation. This person did not
>>>mention if there was another amp that the QSC was being compared to, or
>>>which model it was. I was attempting to find out if there might have
>>>been a reason why they might have found the amp in question to be
>>>faulty.
>>>
>>
>>Don't lie. The reason you asked that is because you are *too* s*too*pid.
>>You are so dumb that if you should ever get a flash of self-awareness you
>>would confess to being "to dumb" to even learn your own mother tounge.
>>
>>But I digress, back to you putting your foot in your mouth, on another
>>occasion you lie .. err.. give another reason why you wrote those
>>unfortunate two sentences above.
>
>
> What's unfortunate about trying to find out more about a vague review of an
> amp?
>
> Do tell us duhmickey, what was that
>
>>other lie .. errr.. reason you put forth on that other occasion. Save us
>>some googling. If you wont I´ll paste it up here in a jiffy. :)
>
>
> Well since you asked so nicely dickless, the other reasons were because
> there are differnt types of QSC amps, some listed as Class AB some as class
> H, which as Trevor will point out is just a variation of Class AB. Some
> people believe that different classes of amplification sound different. I
> simply wanted to find out more about the reasons one would have for thinking
> they heard something bad from one of the QSC amps.

Stop lying you dumbdumb. "I simply wanted to find out" There is no
questioning in that statement of yours. You state as a matter of factly
that you know that not all QSC amps sound the same. And that implicitly
that no dbt's or ABXing rituals were necessary to find this out. You are
so deep-deeeep into dumbDUMB.


>
> I'm sure you will continue to make up yor own story about my reasoning on
> this matter,

I don't need to make anything up. Your amount of dumbness, your
incompetence, the unbeleivable ways you find to put your foot in your
mouth, head up your butt and contradict yourself (like touting around
here for years that "all competent amps sound the same" and the "QSC
amps are good as any since arny uses them" AND THEN : !! "How many QSC
amps have you listened to? Not all are the same.") makes you stranger
then the wildest of fiction you %100 concentrate of dumbdumb you. No
need at all whatsoever to "make up yor own story".. :)

"Fella" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fella wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
>>>>>
>>>>>Who said this? :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I did. Your point?
>>>>
>>>>The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein
>>>>who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC
>>>>amps. An opinion without any substantiation. This person did not
>>>>mention if there was another amp that the QSC was being compared to, or
>>>>which model it was. I was attempting to find out if there might have
>>>>been a reason why they might have found the amp in question to be
>>>>faulty.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Don't lie. The reason you asked that is because you are *too* s*too*pid.
>>>You are so dumb that if you should ever get a flash of self-awareness you
>>>would confess to being "to dumb" to even learn your own mother tounge.
>>>
>>>But I digress, back to you putting your foot in your mouth, on another
>>>occasion you lie .. err.. give another reason why you wrote those
>>>unfortunate two sentences above.
>>
>>
>> What's unfortunate about trying to find out more about a vague review of
>> an amp?
>>
>> Do tell us duhmickey, what was that
>>
>>>other lie .. errr.. reason you put forth on that other occasion. Save us
>>>some googling. If you wont I´ll paste it up here in a jiffy. :)
>>
>>
>> Well since you asked so nicely dickless, the other reasons were because
>> there are differnt types of QSC amps, some listed as Class AB some as
>> class H, which as Trevor will point out is just a variation of Class AB.
>> Some people believe that different classes of amplification sound
>> different. I simply wanted to find out more about the reasons one would
>> have for thinking they heard something bad from one of the QSC amps.
>
> Stop lying you dumbdumb. "I simply wanted to find out" There is no
> questioning in that statement of yours. You state as a matter of factly
> that you know that not all QSC amps sound the same.

Only for the reading impaired like yourself. I was checking bias, as I
said, people beleive things about amp topology that may not always be true.

And that implicitly
> that no dbt's or ABXing rituals were necessary to find this out. You are
> so deep-deeeep into dumbDUMB.
>
Your mind reading skills have failed you again.


>>
>> I'm sure you will continue to make up yor own story about my reasoning on
>> this matter,
>
> I don't need to make anything up. Your amount of dumbness, your
> incompetence, the unbeleivable ways you find to put your foot in your
> mouth, head up your butt and contradict yourself (like touting around here
> for years that "all competent amps sound the same" and the "QSC amps are
> good as any since arny uses them" AND THEN : !! "How many QSC amps have
> you listened to? Not all are the same.") makes you stranger then the
> wildest of fiction you %100 concentrate of dumbdumb you. No need at all
> whatsoever to "make up yor own story".. :)

Not all QSC amps are the same is a matter of fact. They have different
specs and different designs. The one that Arny uses is not made any more,
but there are other pro amps that do not use fans, so the afforability of
proamps compared to overpriced consumer amps like yours are not an issue for
people that want good sound but don't want to spend a furtune to do it.

Enjoy life in Fanasy Land.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:12 pm
Email: <nyob...@peoplepc

>Not all QSC amps are the same is a matter of fact. They have different
>specs and different designs.

Just as a matter of curiosity, which of them sound different due to
incompetent design, design differences, or different specs?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: >
> Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:12 pm
> Email: <nyob...@peoplepc
>
>> Not all QSC amps are the same is a matter of fact. They
>> have different specs and different designs.
>
> Just as a matter of curiosity, which of them sound
> different due to incompetent design, design differences,
> or different specs?

There's no evidence that any of them should or do fail to pass a
straight-wire bypass test.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
>
>>From: >
>>Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:12 pm
>>Email: <nyob...@peoplepc
>>
>>
>>>Not all QSC amps are the same is a matter of fact. They
>>>have different specs and different designs.
>>
>>Just as a matter of curiosity, which of them sound
>>different due to incompetent design, design differences,
>>or different specs?
>
>
> There's no evidence that any of them should or do fail to pass a
> straight-wire bypass test.
>
>

Are you thus disagreeing with your sidekick and suck-puppet, the nyob?

"Fella" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote:
>
> Listen here mickmickey. You are not automatically redeemed by just writing
> some whatever irrelevant text to a substantial revelation of your
> incompetence such as this one. Get a grip boy, try to do better!
>

As if I need redemption from somebody who denies the reality of their own
ABX test, and who now seeks ways to try and rationalize why he couldn't
detect a difference between two amps. The fact that they actually did sound
indentical is just to much for you to deal with, so you make **** up about
why the test that is relied on everyday in professional audio design must be
flawed.

> Having said all that, you put your foot further into your mouth and head
> further up your butt trying to cover your tracks, you incompetent, dumb
> monkey of a borg you. You say that: "Not all QSC amps are the same is a
> matter of fact." NOW ANSWER THIS: Was it not a borg universal truth that
> ALL COMPETENT AMPS ARE THE SAME ?!?! Does the statement above mean that
> some QSC amps are incompetent then?!!
>
I never said anything about them sounding different, I was simply referring
to the differnent circuit dsigns and trying to figure out if there was a
bias against the one used in the discussion. That you can't understand this
is entirely you problem.

>
>> overpriced consumer amps like yours
>
> I am using an odyssey audio stratos+ amp. Compared to the krells and BAT's
> of this world, it is a BARGAIN. And no, you cannot compare it to a piece
> of **** qsc. Unless you abx them of course. :)
>

So which QSC amps have you listened to?
Considering the fact that QSC amps are as flat in their response as any
other home audio amp, built sturdier for travel, and able to handle 2 ohm
loads as a matter of course, I think it's very clear which is a piece of
****, not to mention a bad buy compared to say a QSC 2502 which retails for
about $900.00 and generates 425 watts at 8 ohms compared to the 150 wpc and
$1200.00 retail price of the stratos+.

>> Enjoy life in Fanasy Land.
>
> Fanasy land? OK..

That place where equally well designed amps sound different simply because
you think so.

[Fella]

wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
wrote:
>>
>>Listen here mickmickey. You are not automatically redeemed by just writing
>>some whatever irrelevant text to a substantial revelation of your
>>incompetence such as this one. Get a grip boy, try to do better!
>>
>
>
> As if I need redemption from somebody who denies the reality of their own
> ABX test, and who now seeks ways to try and rationalize why he couldn't
> detect a difference between two amps.

Yeah, as if! :)


The fact that they actually did sound
> indentical is just to much for you to deal with, so you make **** up about
> why the test that is relied on everyday in professional audio design must be
> flawed.
>
>
>>Having said all that, you put your foot further into your mouth and head
>>further up your butt trying to cover your tracks, you incompetent, dumb
>>monkey of a borg you. You say that: "Not all QSC amps are the same is a
>>matter of fact." NOW ANSWER THIS: Was it not a borg universal truth that
>>ALL COMPETENT AMPS ARE THE SAME ?!?! Does the statement above mean that
>>some QSC amps are incompetent then?!!
>>
>
> I never said anything about them sounding different, I was simply referring
> to the differnent circuit dsigns and trying to figure out if there was a
> bias against the one used in the discussion.

That's a lie you dumb borg. "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not
all are the same." There is nothing about circuits there you dumb dumb
borg. You are talking about *_LISTENING_* and you state that not all are
the SAME!!!!!!! :) You dumb dumb dumb dumb borg. The word dumb is not
dumb enough to describe how dumb you are.

Besides, on another thread you talk about differences in *FREQUENCY
RESPONSE*!!! between qsc amps. :) Come clean now, stop the disgusting
lies, you dumb borg. :) You know I can just copy paste that here also. :)










That you can't understand this
> is entirely you problem.
>
>
>>>overpriced consumer amps like yours
>>
>>I am using an odyssey audio stratos+ amp. Compared to the krells and BAT's
>>of this world, it is a BARGAIN. And no, you cannot compare it to a piece
>>of **** qsc. Unless you abx them of course. :)
>>
>
>
> So which QSC amps have you listened to?
> Considering the fact that QSC amps are as flat in their response as any
> other home audio amp, built sturdier for travel, and able to handle 2 ohm
> loads as a matter of course, I think it's very clear which is a piece of
> ****, not to mention a bad buy compared to say a QSC 2502 which retails for
> about $900.00 and generates 425 watts at 8 ohms compared to the 150 wpc and
> $1200.00 retail price of the stratos+.
>
>
>>>Enjoy life in Fanasy Land.
>>
>>Fanasy land? OK..
>
>
> That place where equally well designed amps sound different simply because
> you think so.
>
>

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>Listen here mickmickey. You are not automatically redeemed by just
>>>writing some whatever irrelevant text to a substantial revelation of your
>>>incompetence such as this one. Get a grip boy, try to do better!
>>>
>>
>>
>> As if I need redemption from somebody who denies the reality of their own
>> ABX test, and who now seeks ways to try and rationalize why he couldn't
>> detect a difference between two amps.
>
> Yeah, as if! :)
>
>
> The fact that they actually did sound
>> indentical is just to much for you to deal with, so you make **** up
>> about why the test that is relied on everyday in professional audio
>> design must be flawed.
>>
>>
>>>Having said all that, you put your foot further into your mouth and head
>>>further up your butt trying to cover your tracks, you incompetent, dumb
>>>monkey of a borg you. You say that: "Not all QSC amps are the same is a
>>>matter of fact." NOW ANSWER THIS: Was it not a borg universal truth that
>>>ALL COMPETENT AMPS ARE THE SAME ?!?! Does the statement above mean that
>>>some QSC amps are incompetent then?!!
>>>
>>
>> I never said anything about them sounding different, I was simply
>> referring to the differnent circuit dsigns and trying to figure out if
>> there was a bias against the one used in the discussion.
>
> That's a lie you dumb borg. "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not
> all are the same." There is nothing about circuits there you dumb dumb
> borg.

Well, excuse the **** out of me for not hecking with you first about what I
am thinking when I post. You still fail as a mind reader, and as a golden
ear.

You are talking about *_LISTENING_* and you state that not all are
> the SAME!!!!!!! :)

Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H.

You dumb dumb dumb dumb borg. The word dumb is not
> dumb enough to describe how dumb you are.
>
It works for describing you though, although vitriolic and demented are
probably more descriptive.

[Fella]

wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fella" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Listen here mickmickey. You are not automatically redeemed by just
>>>>writing some whatever irrelevant text to a substantial revelation of your
>>>>incompetence such as this one. Get a grip boy, try to do better!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>As if I need redemption from somebody who denies the reality of their own
>>>ABX test, and who now seeks ways to try and rationalize why he couldn't
>>>detect a difference between two amps.
>>
>>Yeah, as if! :)
>>
>>
>> The fact that they actually did sound
>>
>>>indentical is just to much for you to deal with, so you make **** up
>>>about why the test that is relied on everyday in professional audio
>>>design must be flawed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Having said all that, you put your foot further into your mouth and head
>>>>further up your butt trying to cover your tracks, you incompetent, dumb
>>>>monkey of a borg you. You say that: "Not all QSC amps are the same is a
>>>>matter of fact." NOW ANSWER THIS: Was it not a borg universal truth that
>>>>ALL COMPETENT AMPS ARE THE SAME ?!?! Does the statement above mean that
>>>>some QSC amps are incompetent then?!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>I never said anything about them sounding different, I was simply
>>>referring to the differnent circuit dsigns and trying to figure out if
>>>there was a bias against the one used in the discussion.
>>
>>That's a lie you dumb borg. "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not
>>all are the same." There is nothing about circuits there you dumb dumb
>>borg.
>
>
> Well, excuse the **** out of me for not hecking with you first about what I
> am thinking when I post. You still fail as a mind reader, and as a golden
> ear.

Look boy, **** yourself all you want, and heck with somebody else,
whatever that means, see if I care, but before that show me the word
"circuits" in the following two sentences: "How many QSC amps have you
listened to? Not all are the same." ! :) I can show you the word
"listened" there. See, it's there! :)

>
> You are talking about *_LISTENING_* and you state that not all are
>
>>the SAME!!!!!!! :)
>
>
> Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H.

And you have deemed that somehow they sound different, yes! Ok, now
we're gettin somewhere. :) Have you ABXed them? How do you know that
they do not sound the same? Since the head borg you are serving as a
loyal SUCKpuppet to, arny krueger, uses the very same qsc amps, how can
they differ in sound from one model to another? Isn't this blasphemy?
Don't you realize how much of a capital crime you've committed by
uttering those ghastly two sentences you dumb dumb you! :) Are they
****ing on you in the hive now? You've been caught red handed. You have
a torah in your hand, you've been spotted, the nazi borg are at your
neck, run boy run! :)

[dave weil]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:00:56 GMT, > wrote:

>Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H.

Do they sound different of something?

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> "Fella" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Fella" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Listen here mickmickey. You are not automatically redeemed by just
>>>>>writing some whatever irrelevant text to a substantial revelation of
>>>>>your incompetence such as this one. Get a grip boy, try to do better!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As if I need redemption from somebody who denies the reality of their
>>>>own ABX test, and who now seeks ways to try and rationalize why he
>>>>couldn't detect a difference between two amps.
>>>
>>>Yeah, as if! :)
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that they actually did sound
>>>
>>>>indentical is just to much for you to deal with, so you make **** up
>>>>about why the test that is relied on everyday in professional audio
>>>>design must be flawed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Having said all that, you put your foot further into your mouth and
>>>>>head further up your butt trying to cover your tracks, you incompetent,
>>>>>dumb monkey of a borg you. You say that: "Not all QSC amps are the same
>>>>>is a matter of fact." NOW ANSWER THIS: Was it not a borg universal
>>>>>truth that ALL COMPETENT AMPS ARE THE SAME ?!?! Does the statement
>>>>>above mean that some QSC amps are incompetent then?!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I never said anything about them sounding different, I was simply
>>>>referring to the differnent circuit dsigns and trying to figure out if
>>>>there was a bias against the one used in the discussion.
>>>
>>>That's a lie you dumb borg. "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not
>>>all are the same." There is nothing about circuits there you dumb dumb
>>>borg.
>>
>>
>> Well, excuse the **** out of me for not hecking with you first about
>> what I am thinking when I post. You still fail as a mind reader, and as
>> a golden ear.
>
> Look boy, **** yourself all you want, and heck with somebody else,
> whatever that means, see if I care, but before that show me the word
> "circuits" in the following two sentences: "How many QSC amps have you
> listened to? Not all are the same." ! :) I can show you the word
> "listened" there. See, it's there! :)
>
>>
>> You are talking about *_LISTENING_* and you state that not all are
>>
>>>the SAME!!!!!!! :)
>>
>>
>> Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H.
>
> And you have deemed that somehow they sound different, yes!

No, I have discovered that some people think so. If done badly of course,
they can all sound bad.

Ok, now
> we're gettin somewhere. :)

Only in your wierd mind.

Have you ABXed them? How do you know that
> they do not sound the same? Since the head borg you are serving as a loyal
> SUCKpuppet to, arny krueger, uses the very same qsc amps, how can they
> differ in sound from one model to another?

The QSC amps Arny uses are no longer manufactured.

Isn't this blasphemy?

Who ever said amps can't sound different? Nobody other than the people who
constantly misrepresent what others say, like you do.

> Don't you realize how much of a capital crime you've committed by uttering
> those ghastly two sentences you dumb dumb you! :)

Not possible since I didn't say that and it isn't a crime to do so.

Are they
> ****ing on you in the hive now? You've been caught red handed. You have a
> torah in your hand, you've been spotted, the nazi borg are at your neck,
> run boy run! :)
>
Back to your room now, they need to strap you down again.

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:00:56 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H.
>
> Do they sound different of something?

Not to my knowledge. They just sound like good amps, because they are.

[Fella]

There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of
a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your
duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!)
other qsc amps. It's all there in duh!black and duh!white... When are
you going to muster up enough of your duh!brains to understand that you
are really, actually and originally one dumb mother?? :)


wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fella" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Fella" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Listen here mickmickey. You are not automatically redeemed by just
>>>>>>writing some whatever irrelevant text to a substantial revelation of
>>>>>>your incompetence such as this one. Get a grip boy, try to do better!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>As if I need redemption from somebody who denies the reality of their
>>>>>own ABX test, and who now seeks ways to try and rationalize why he
>>>>>couldn't detect a difference between two amps.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, as if! :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that they actually did sound
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>indentical is just to much for you to deal with, so you make **** up
>>>>>about why the test that is relied on everyday in professional audio
>>>>>design must be flawed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Having said all that, you put your foot further into your mouth and
>>>>>>head further up your butt trying to cover your tracks, you incompetent,
>>>>>>dumb monkey of a borg you. You say that: "Not all QSC amps are the same
>>>>>>is a matter of fact." NOW ANSWER THIS: Was it not a borg universal
>>>>>>truth that ALL COMPETENT AMPS ARE THE SAME ?!?! Does the statement
>>>>>>above mean that some QSC amps are incompetent then?!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I never said anything about them sounding different, I was simply
>>>>>referring to the differnent circuit dsigns and trying to figure out if
>>>>>there was a bias against the one used in the discussion.
>>>>
>>>>That's a lie you dumb borg. "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not
>>>>all are the same." There is nothing about circuits there you dumb dumb
>>>>borg.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, excuse the **** out of me for not hecking with you first about
>>>what I am thinking when I post. You still fail as a mind reader, and as
>>>a golden ear.
>>
>>Look boy, **** yourself all you want, and heck with somebody else,
>>whatever that means, see if I care, but before that show me the word
>>"circuits" in the following two sentences: "How many QSC amps have you
>>listened to? Not all are the same." ! :) I can show you the word
>>"listened" there. See, it's there! :)
>>
>>
>>>You are talking about *_LISTENING_* and you state that not all are
>>>
>>>
>>>>the SAME!!!!!!! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H.
>>
>>And you have deemed that somehow they sound different, yes!
>
>
> No, I have discovered that some people think so. If done badly of course,
> they can all sound bad.
>
> Ok, now
>
>>we're gettin somewhere. :)
>
>
> Only in your wierd mind.
>
> Have you ABXed them? How do you know that
>
>>they do not sound the same? Since the head borg you are serving as a loyal
>>SUCKpuppet to, arny krueger, uses the very same qsc amps, how can they
>>differ in sound from one model to another?
>
>
> The QSC amps Arny uses are no longer manufactured.
>
> Isn't this blasphemy?
>
> Who ever said amps can't sound different? Nobody other than the people who
> constantly misrepresent what others say, like you do.
>
>
>>Don't you realize how much of a capital crime you've committed by uttering
>>those ghastly two sentences you dumb dumb you! :)
>
>
> Not possible since I didn't say that and it isn't a crime to do so.
>
> Are they
>
>>****ing on you in the hive now? You've been caught red handed. You have a
>>torah in your hand, you've been spotted, the nazi borg are at your neck,
>>run boy run! :)
>>
>
> Back to your room now, they need to strap you down again.
>
>

[[email protected]]

Fella wrote:
> There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of
> a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your
> duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!)
> other qsc amps.

No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true
statement.

It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've
never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say
for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs,
which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built
amp, IOW transparent.

It's all there in duh!black and duh!white... When are
> you going to muster up enough of your duh!brains to understand that you
> are really, actually and originally one dumb mother?? :)
>
>
When are you going to muster up the balls to admit that the 2 amps you
compared actually did sound indistignuishable and that maybe with some
training like the kind offered at Arny's website, you might do better,
if indeed there is any difference.

[Pooh Bear]

" wrote:

> Fella wrote:
> > There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of
> > a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your
> > duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!)
> > other qsc amps.
>
> No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true
> statement.
>
> It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've
> never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say
> for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs,
> which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built
> amp, IOW transparent.

The specs alone don't tell you very much. In fact they tell very little about
how an amplifier sounds at low levels in particular.

The grounded collector arrangement favoured by QSC leads to a design with
significant non-linearities not shared by amplifiers with emitter follower
outputs for example.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>

>
> It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've
> never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say
> for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs,
> which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built
> amp, IOW transparent.
>

Aaah! they 'ought' to. So, you have expectation that they will sound
the same, so, we know that when and if you ABX them,
that test will NOT remove your bias towards sameness.
Youare stuckina rut.
Of course, we all know that you have never, and will never,
and have no intention of ever, participating in one of those 'rigorous'
tests.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
>
> >
> > It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've
> > never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say
> > for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs,
> > which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built
> > amp, IOW transparent.
> >
>
> Aaah! they 'ought' to. So, you have expectation that they will sound
> the same, so, we know that when and if you ABX them,
> that test will NOT remove your bias towards sameness.
> Youare stuckina rut.

Not at all, if I were to take the time to ABX any amps, I would be
doing my level best to try and hear any that might exist. The fact
that there is a correlation between measurements and hearing
differences is simply a matter of fact. In order to hear differences,
they have to be audible in the forst place.


> Of course, we all know that you have never, and will never,
> and have no intention of ever, participating in one of those 'rigorous'
> tests.
>
Should the opportunity arise, I would be happy to do so.
>

[[email protected]]

dave weil wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:00:56 GMT, > wrote:
>
> >Because they are not all the same, some are Class AB, some are Class H.
>
> Do they sound different of something?

Some people like Trevor think that class H sounds awful, my experience
with class H amps is very different.

No way to be sure without an ABX comparison.
If their published specs are accurate, I doubt very much they would
sound any different than any other well made amps.

[[email protected]]

EE wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Fella wrote:
> >> "How many QSC amps have you listened to? Not all are the same."
> >>
> >> Who said this? :)
> >
> > I did. Your point?
> >
> > The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone other than Morein
> > who was claiming that there was something wrong with the sound of QSC
> > amps.
>
> They sound like ****, but since you live in a toilet, it would be hard for
> you to tell.

Now, now, Mr. Kolker, shouldn't you toddle off back to the Battlestar
Galactica newsgroups where you would be more at home?

[[email protected]]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> " wrote:
>
> > Fella wrote:
> > > There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of
> > > a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your
> > > duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!)
> > > other qsc amps.
> >
> > No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true
> > statement.
> >
> > It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've
> > never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say
> > for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs,
> > which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built
> > amp, IOW transparent.
>
> The specs alone don't tell you very much. In fact they tell very little about
> how an amplifier sounds at low levels in particular.
>
> The grounded collector arrangement favoured by QSC leads to a design with
> significant non-linearities not shared by amplifiers with emitter follower
> outputs for example.
>
The post I responded to was about a single person listening to an amp
without AFAIK any other amp to compare it to. I don't have a problem
with the possiblity that they might sound different from other amps, I
simply so not see any evidence, nor have I heard any.

A single listening to something, without any comaprsion, level
controls, or bias control, is not worth discussing, unless the
distortion or noise is extremely gross, which IME is not the case with
QSC products.

Even in cases where the is extremely high distortion, it can go
undetected as was th case with Fremer's review of the WAVAC amp.
Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding,
things like 10% THD can go unnoticed.

[Arny Krueger]

"EE" > wrote in message


> > wrote in message
> oups.com...


>> The reason I asked was that I was replying to someone
>> other than Morein who was claiming that there was
>> something wrong with the sound of QSC amps.

Seems civil enough.

Note that the guy writing this is a so-called objectivist.

> They sound like ****, but since you live in a toilet, it
> would be hard for you to tell.

Seems profane and insulting enough to come from a so-called subjectivist.

Here's how it works:

Everybody has an ego, and one of the functions of an ego is to assert that
it is right.

Within the philosophy that many around here mis-identify as subjectivism,
there is no external standard of right and wrong. It's everyone for
themselves.

Therefore, the only way that the egos of so-called subjectivists can be
satisfied is with a noisy shouting match.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've
>> > never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say
>> > for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs,
>> > which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built
>> > amp, IOW transparent.
>> >
>>
>> Aaah! they 'ought' to. So, you have expectation that they will sound
>> the same, so, we know that when and if you ABX them,
>> that test will NOT remove your bias towards sameness.
>> Youare stuckina rut.
>
> Not at all, if I were to take the time to ABX any amps, I would be
> doing my level best to try and hear any that might exist. The fact
> that there is a correlation between measurements and hearing
> differences is simply a matter of fact. In order to hear differences,
> they have to be audible in the forst place.
>

But you belive they don't exist. You have the bias.


>
>> Of course, we all know that you have never, and will never,
>> and have no intention of ever, participating in one of those 'rigorous'
>> tests.
>>
> Should the opportunity arise, I would be happy to do so.
>>


So would I.
Funny how the opportunity never arose before.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Pooh Bear]

" wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
> > " wrote:
> >
> > > Fella wrote:
> > > > There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of
> > > > a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your
> > > > duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!)
> > > > other qsc amps.
> > >
> > > No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true
> > > statement.
> > >
> > > It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've
> > > never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say
> > > for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs,
> > > which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built
> > > amp, IOW transparent.
> >
> > The specs alone don't tell you very much. In fact they tell very little about
> > how an amplifier sounds at low levels in particular.
> >
> > The grounded collector arrangement favoured by QSC leads to a design with
> > significant non-linearities not shared by amplifiers with emitter follower
> > outputs for example.
>
> The post I responded to was about a single person listening to an amp
> without AFAIK any other amp to compare it to. I don't have a problem
> with the possiblity that they might sound different from other amps, I
> simply so not see any evidence, nor have I heard any.
>
> A single listening to something, without any comaprsion, level
> controls, or bias control, is not worth discussing, unless the
> distortion or noise is extremely gross, which IME is not the case with
> QSC products.
>
> Even in cases where the is extremely high distortion, it can go
> undetected as was th case with Fremer's review of the WAVAC amp.
> Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding,
> things like 10% THD can go unnoticed.

I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of 0.1% ( @ full power as per
typical specs ) must be 'audibly blameless'.

A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY* incorrect. I'm not talking
about subtle differences I'm talking chalk and cheese.

Graham

[[email protected]]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> " wrote:
>
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> > > " wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fella wrote:
> > > > > There you go again denying the obvious you stoopid boy. In the midst of
> > > > > a heated debate you went and blurted out that statement expressing your
> > > > > duh!opinion about some qsc amps sounding better then (or different!)
> > > > > other qsc amps.
> > > >
> > > > No I did not. I said they are not all the same, which is a true
> > > > statement.
> > > >
> > > > It is possible that some of them do sound different from others, I've
> > > > never seen bench tests on them so without that knowledge I can't say
> > > > for sure. What I can say is that judging from their published specs,
> > > > which are quite complete, they ought to sound like any other well built
> > > > amp, IOW transparent.
> > >
> > > The specs alone don't tell you very much. In fact they tell very little about
> > > how an amplifier sounds at low levels in particular.
> > >
> > > The grounded collector arrangement favoured by QSC leads to a design with
> > > significant non-linearities not shared by amplifiers with emitter follower
> > > outputs for example.
> >
> > The post I responded to was about a single person listening to an amp
> > without AFAIK any other amp to compare it to. I don't have a problem
> > with the possiblity that they might sound different from other amps, I
> > simply so not see any evidence, nor have I heard any.
> >
> > A single listening to something, without any comaprsion, level
> > controls, or bias control, is not worth discussing, unless the
> > distortion or noise is extremely gross, which IME is not the case with
> > QSC products.
> >
> > Even in cases where the is extremely high distortion, it can go
> > undetected as was th case with Fremer's review of the WAVAC amp.
> > Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding,
> > things like 10% THD can go unnoticed.
>
> I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of 0.1% ( @ full power as per
> typical specs ) must be 'audibly blameless'.
>
> A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY* incorrect. I'm not talking
> about subtle differences I'm talking chalk and cheese.
>
> Graham

I'm not making any judgements on how the QSC amps sound one way or
another, only that they appear good on paper and have a very solid
reputation in their normal market.

One listening by someone with a presdisposition to dislike them is not
going to sway me one way or another. I have read reviews of some of
their amps on pro sound web sites and never seen a bad one.

I'm not sure what point you need to make, mine is simply that a single
listening by someone already biased against them is not going to
convince me their line or even that particular amp has a problem. I do
think it would be interesting to do an ABX with any QSC amp vs. any
consumer amp and see what happens.

Even a simple blind and level matched A/B comparison would be more
informative than what happened with the one listening that is being
talked about here.

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From:
> Date: Tues, Feb 28 2006 12:39 pm
> Email: " >
>
> Oh, I think I get it now.
>
> So this:
>
> "In order to hear differences, they have to be audible in the forst
> (sic) place."
>
> Coupled with this:
>
> "Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding,
> things like 10% THD can go unnoticed."
>
> means we have to compare amps side-by-side to notice differences even
> that large, or (god forbid) something with 10% THD might even sound
> good to us. So we must train our ears, like a gourmet trains their
> palate to detect a slight amount of spice in a complex dish, or like a
> perfumer trains their nose to identify slight innuendoes of scent, to
> accept only something only below the lowest amount of distortion that
> we can hear, or it doesn't qualify as 'high-fidelity' and we must
> discard it. Furthermore, after this training, 'only the best' will do.
> Is that about it?
>
> I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why you would beat
> up on people with preferences to SETs, phono, or anything else you
> don't like: they just don't meet your definition of 'high-fidelity'
> even if that person finds them very satisfying.
>
> It must be like somone farting, so to speak, in your perfume. The very
> thought that somebody thinks that something you don't like sounds good.
> Shoot the *******s!
>
> So I've learned a few things:
>
> 1. It is your and Mr. Krueger's definition of high-fidelity that
> matters, and
>
> 2. Nobody else's definition matters, and
>
> 3. You have to really work very hard to train yourself to hear these
> differences, and
>
> 4. Most people would probably agree that it just isn't that ****ing
> important to them in time or money to do so, and
>
> 5. One wonders why it's so important to you and Mr. Krueger that we all
> agree with your conlusions, and
>
> 6. Therefore what's your point.
>
> So some of us don't like escargo. Sue us.
>

Is that the same as feces sauteed in butter?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 6:16 am
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>Is that the same as feces sauteed in butter?

Yuck!

Tell you what: You don't ever cook for me and I won't alter the scent
of your perfume.

Does that sound fair?

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 6:16 am
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>Is that the same as feces sauteed in butter?
>
> Yuck!
>
> Tell you what: You don't ever cook for me and I won't alter the scent
> of your perfume.
>
> Does that sound fair?
>

I was speaking of Kroofeces, of course.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[[email protected]]

Shhhh! I'm Being Uneasonable! wrote:
> From:
> Date: Tues, Feb 28 2006 12:39 pm
> Email: " >
>
> Oh, I think I get it now.
>
> So this:
>
> "In order to hear differences, they have to be audible in the first
> place."
>
> Coupled with this:
>
> "Without a direct comparison to something known to be clean sounding,
> things like 10% THD can go unnoticed."
>
> means we have to compare amps side-by-side to notice differences even
> that large, or (god forbid) something with 10% THD might even sound
> good to us.

It happens. People who prefer the sound of SET amps are essentially
doing just that.
Of course if you are not listening to something like an SET that is
already known to be essentially a distorion generator, the odds are
pretty good that it will be accurate enough to be hi-fi.

Experiments have been done where distorted signals were sent to audio
systems and they went unnoticed due to the manner in which the
comparisons were done.

So we must train our ears, like a gourmet trains their
> palate to detect a slight amount of spice in a complex dish, or like a
> perfumer trains their nose to identify slight innuendoes of scent, to
> accept only something only below the lowest amount of distortion that
> we can hear, or it doesn't qualify as 'high-fidelity' and we must
> discard it. Furthermore, after this training, 'only the best' will do.
> Is that about it?

For those who want the most accurate reproduction. If you just want
what sounds good to you, and don't care anything about accurate hi-fi,
then you are free to chose whatever you want.

>
> I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why you would beat
> up on people with preferences to SETs, phono, or anything else you
> don't like: they just don't meet your definition of 'high-fidelity'
> even if that person finds them very satisfying.

People are free to choose whatever they like as long as they aren't
claiming it to be more accurate than something that actually is, it's
the difference between hi-fi and my-fi.
It's a choice you get to make.

I don't beat up on anybody for making a choice I don't agree with, only
when they make claims that are untrue and obviously so.

>
> It must be like somone farting, so to speak, in your perfume. The very
> thought that somebody thinks that something you don't like sounds good.
> Shoot the *******s!
>

I don't care what people like, I do care about the claims that
distorted audio is accurate audio.


> So I've learned a few things:

Not so's you would notice.
>
> 1. It is your and Mr. Krueger's definition of high-fidelity that
> matters, and
>

No, hi-fi is a term that has a specific meaning, like rape, if you use
it where it doesn't apply, you demean the word and weaken it.

> 2. Nobody else's definition matters, and
>
Definitions are so that people can understand what you are talking
about. If you apply a definition that doesn't apply, it becomes harder
to understand what is being said.

> 3. You have to really work very hard to train yourself to hear these
> differences, and

If you don't have a reference, then it can be impossible to know if
what you are hearing is an accurate reproduction or just something that
sounds pleasant. There's nothing wrong with like the latter, but it
may not be actual hi-fi.

>
> 4. Most people would probably agree that it just isn't that ****ing
> important to them in time or money to do so, and
>

They would not be audiophiles, since that is one of the things
audiophiles pride themselves on. They like to think they can hear
things that others can't, because they have trained themselves to hear
better than regular people.

> 5. One wonders why it's so important to you and Mr. Krueger that we all
> agree with your conlusions, and
>

I don't care if you agree or not, I'm just explaining how I define
things. You can and obvioulsy do make up whatever definition you feel
like.

> 6. Therefore what's your point.
>
That words have meaning.
Using the example of rape, it has a meaning that if applie to other
actions that may be unpleasant, but are not actually rape, then youu
weaken the force of the word. A grab of someone's ass is not rape.
Forcing someone to perform a sex act against their will is.
The grab ass is not nearly the same as actaul rape and should not be
confuse with it, just as grossly distorted audio reproduction should
not be considered high fidelity.

> So some of us don't like escargo. Sue us.

Having had escargot, I can say it was no big deal, but not something I
would go out of may way for.

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote
in message

> I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of
> 0.1% ( @ full power as per typical specs ) must be
> 'audibly blameless'.

> A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY*
> incorrect. I'm not talking about subtle differences I'm
> talking chalk and cheese.

Seems like a straw man argument since there are so many well-known ways that
an amplifier can have 0.1% THD at full power and *not* be audibly blameless.
Or is that the point?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com


> I'm not sure what point you need to make, mine is simply
> that a single listening by someone already biased against
> them is not going to convince me their line or even that
> particular amp has a problem. I do think it would be
> interesting to do an ABX with any QSC amp vs. any
> consumer amp and see what happens.

There's no need for a second amp.

The best standard for comparison for an amplifier is a piece of wire and a
precision attenuator.

You use the precision attenuator to match the gain of the amp with that of
the piece of wire.

You drive the wire and the amp with a high-quality source that is capable of
driving both the amp and a pair of high-quality headphones and listen with
the headphones.

You load the amp with a loudspeaker in another room or with an electrical
network that loads the amp like a loudspeaker.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com

> I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why
> you would beat up on people with preferences to SETs,
> phono, or anything else you don't like: they just don't
> meet your definition of 'high-fidelity' even if that
> person finds them very satisfying.

Lets say that someone (and it would be in character for that someone to be
you Mr. Shhh!) finds a 6-transistor AM radio to be very satisfying, and
tells us all that we should set aside our various audio systems and take up
the habit of listening to a 6-transistor AM radio?

How should we respond when that person's suggestions are tinged with a
belittling tone?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 12:28 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>> I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why
>> you would beat up on people with preferences to SETs,
>> phono, or anything else you don't like: they just don't
>> meet your definition of 'high-fidelity' even if that
>> person finds them very satisfying.

>Lets say that someone (and it would be in character for that someone to be
>you Mr. Shhh!) finds a 6-transistor AM radio to be very satisfying, and
>tells us all that we should set aside our various audio systems and take up
>the habit of listening to a 6-transistor AM radio?

>How should we respond when that person's suggestions are tinged with a
>belittling tone?

Why, even if there *wasn't* a 'belittling tone' I'd lay into them for
such a ridiculous claim! I'd question their hearing. I'd be snyde and
insulting. I'd make up things that were never actually said, create
false arguments, declare them to be true, and then act surprised when
someone points it out.

Take Jenn for example: all she has ever done is stated a preference.
She's been pretty reasonable given the amount of crap that's been flung
her was, IMO. She has even questioned whether euphonic distortion could
explain her preference. She's asked questions. This has done her little
or no good.

Equipment that can be considered 'high-fidelity' has been around since
the late 1950s. Have things improved since then? Sure. Do CDs have less
distortion than LPs? Yes. But that does not mean they sound better to
all people. In the case of CD vs. LP, CDs are 'higher fidelity' than
LPs. That does not mean that LPs are not 'high fidelity.'

So In your example, if somebody said, "Trumpets on some recordings
sound better to me on a six-transistor radio than through a Bryston
system with Quads" so be it. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

You and nob, OTOH, obviously see it differently.

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote
> in message
>
> > I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of
> > 0.1% ( @ full power as per typical specs ) must be
> > 'audibly blameless'.
>
> > A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY*
> > incorrect. I'm not talking about subtle differences I'm
> > talking chalk and cheese.
>
> Seems like a straw man argument since there are so many well-known ways that
> an amplifier can have 0.1% THD at full power and *not* be audibly blameless.
> Or is that the point?

You're agreeing that 0.1% THD is an invalid criterion for audible quality ?

The classic QSC configuration is truly one of the very worst around. The
grounded collector output stage has variable gain with output power leading to
an entirely new class of non-linearity not present in emitter follower style
designs for example.

Futhermore it uses a 'brute force' IC op-amp feedback method discredited as far
back as the late 70s IIRC ( TIM and all that ).

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote
in message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" >
>> wrote
>> in message
>>
>>> I once believed that an amplifier with a stated THD of
>>> 0.1% ( @ full power as per typical specs ) must be
>>> 'audibly blameless'.
>>
>>> A very simple test rapidly showed that to be *HUGELY*
>>> incorrect. I'm not talking about subtle differences I'm
>>> talking chalk and cheese.
>>
>> Seems like a straw man argument since there are so many
>> well-known ways that an amplifier can have 0.1% THD at
>> full power and *not* be audibly blameless. Or is that
>> the point?
>
> You're agreeing that 0.1% THD is an invalid criterion for
> audible quality ?

Agreed on two grounds:

(1) Its possible to hear 0.1 THD with music pretty readily if the music
follows a certain pattern.

(2) There's more to a proper spec than THD at full power. For example the
old SS amps that had problems with crossover distortion, had low THD at high
power but far higher THD at lower power levels like normal listening levels.

> The classic QSC configuration is truly one of the very
> worst around. The grounded collector output stage has
> variable gain with output power leading to an entirely
> new class of non-linearity not present in emitter
> follower style designs for example.

But, the QSC amps I've tested have low THS at both high and low powers, and
its easy to run them at very substantial power levels that have less than
0.02% THD or IM for any frequencies or combinations of frequencies in the
audio band and well beyond.

> Futhermore it uses a 'brute force' IC op-amp feedback
> method discredited as far back as the late 70s IIRC ( TIM
> and all that ).

Whatever they do, it works pretty well. About 8-10 years ago QSC distributed
ABX boxes of their own design to some of their dealers to drive home the
point that their amps of the day sound just fine.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_qsc.htm

http://www.ackthud.net/shawnfogg/pics/temp/ABX.pdf

You can rent it here for $50 a day:

http://www.audiorents.com/html/testandmeasurement.html

(8th item)

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm

"There are two available ABX-style comparison devices. QSC sells an ABX box
and there is a pc-based system (PCABX available free from www.pcabx.com)
from Arny Krueger, one of the original ABX Company guys. I have four
available; the two above, a one-off made for Bob Carver and the original ABX
box."

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Wed, Mar 1 2006 12:28 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>>> I can also see now (and I now understand perfectly) why
>>> you would beat up on people with preferences to SETs,
>>> phono, or anything else you don't like: they just don't
>>> meet your definition of 'high-fidelity' even if that
>>> person finds them very satisfying.
>
>> Lets say that someone (and it would be in character for
>> that someone to be you Mr. Shhh!) finds a 6-transistor
>> AM radio to be very satisfying, and tells us all that we
>> should set aside our various audio systems and take up
>> the habit of listening to a 6-transistor AM radio?
>
>> How should we respond when that person's suggestions are
>> tinged with a belittling tone?
>
> Why, even if there *wasn't* a 'belittling tone' I'd lay
> into them for such a ridiculous claim!

You mean, like you have on RAO?


>I'd question their
> hearing. I'd be snyde and insulting. I'd make up things
> that were never actually said, create false arguments,
> declare them to be true, and then act surprised when
> someone points it out.

I think you've done all those things, Mr Shhh!

How does it feel to be a hypocrite?

Have a nice day!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Mar 2 2006 5:16 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>> Why, even if there *wasn't* a 'belittling tone' I'd lay
>> into them for such a ridiculous claim!

>You mean, like you have on RAO?

"IKYABWAI"

So the reason you do it it because other people make you do it.

>> I'd question their
>> hearing. I'd be snyde and insulting. I'd make up things
>> that were never actually said, create false arguments,
>> declare them to be true, and then act surprised when
>> someone points it out.

>I think you've done all those things, Mr Shhh!

Really? Please point out where I have questioned anyone's hearing.
Please point out a false argument. Please point out where I 'made
something up' that was never said. Please point out where I've been
surprised ny the actions of you or nob.

>>How does it feel to be a hypocrite?

I wouldn't know.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Thurs, Mar 2 2006 5:16 am
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>>> Why, even if there *wasn't* a 'belittling tone' I'd lay
>>> into them for such a ridiculous claim!
>
>> You mean, like you have on RAO?
>
> "IKYABWAI"
>
> So the reason you do it it because other people make you
> do it.

Not at all. I do what is in the long term best interests of my
correspondent.

>>> I'd question their
>>> hearing. I'd be snyde and insulting. I'd make up things
>>> that were never actually said, create false arguments,
>>> declare them to be true, and then act surprised when
>>> someone points it out.

>> I think you've done all those things, Mr Shhh!
>
> Really? Please point out where I have questioned anyone's
> hearing.


Well, I missed one. I have questioned the hearing of people who are in
occupations that are prone to early hearing damage, such as a musician that
is part of a symphony orchestra. I've documented that fact.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> About 8-10 years ago QSC distributed
> ABX boxes of their own design to some of their dealers to drive home the
> point that their amps of the day sound just fine.


The point driven home by that is the ability of the ABX box to make
everything sound the same. :)

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> About 8-10 years ago QSC distributed
>> ABX boxes of their own design to some of their dealers
>> to drive home the point that their amps of the day
>> sound just fine.
>
>
> The point driven home by that is the ability of the ABX
> box to make everything sound the same. :)

Right, your post is a joke. :-(