Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution

[Andre Jute]

Yo, Pinkerton:

Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is
rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to
tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607
messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and
pettily.

If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read
the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070
minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other
people's glee in their hobby

What's your excuse?

Andre Jute

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Yo, Pinkerton:
>
> Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is
> rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your
> expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your
> total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube
> conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
> negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing
> maliciously and pettily.

> If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to
> find and read the post you responded to, to type and send
> you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50
> hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their
> hobby

> What's your excuse?

No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of hype and false
claims.

The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post
fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates:

"Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to believe that tubes
automatically impart some kind of magic fairy dust, so manufacturers
exploit that."

All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps could be invested in
making good sounding (SS) amps.

The time could be spent other audio projects that are forward-looking as
opposed to backward-looking.

[Andre Jute]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Yo, Pinkerton:
> >
> > Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is
> > rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your
> > expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your
> > total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube
> > conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
> > negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing
> > maliciously and pettily.
>
> > If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to
> > find and read the post you responded to, to type and send
> > you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50
> > hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their
> > hobby
>
> > What's your excuse?
>
> No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of hype and false
> claims.

Only the most monumentally stupid and the most monumentally arrogant
people ever have such certainty in their own judgement as you and
Pinkerton exhibit, Krueger. Your determination to control through your
public nastiness the activities of people even in their harmless
hobbies is sociopathic.

I have already proved that you, Arnold Krueger, are so keen to make
yourself appear more important than you are that you will lash out
denigration to a group of people who did you no harm before the group
is even specified. This very post above to which you are responding
proves that Stewart Pinkerton is so keen to lash out pain to others
that he spends a quarter of his working life ruining the pleasure in
their hobby of posters to a tube conference where Pinkerton has
absolutely no business, where it has been repeatedly made clear to him
that he isn't wanted, where his attempt to prove that his way is better
(his dumb KISASS design) ended in a humilating failure, where his lies
are constantly exposed, where no secret is made of the fact that he is
despised for being scum to a greater extent even than you are.

> The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post
> fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates:

Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may follow?

> "Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to believe that tubes
> automatically impart some kind of magic fairy dust, so manufacturers
> exploit that."

So what? It's their business and their money. Why is it so disturbing
to you little control freaks that people hear something different from
you?

What has manufacturing hype to do with the DIYers on RAT? How does what
manufacturers do justify Pinkerton's foul manners and destructive
lunging around other people's hobbies? Or yours, for that matter,
Krueger?

It is truly sick for grown men to justify their existence (as you,
Arnold Krueger, and Stewart Pinkerton, repeatedly do, as you done again
above) by the disruption they bring to other people's innocent
pleasure.

> All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps could be invested in
> making good sounding (SS) amps.

Who appointed you UberFuhrer of people's hi-fi?

> The time could be spent other audio projects that are forward-looking as
> opposed to backward-looking.

And approved by you and the equally arid, useless, uncultured, slimy,
ignorant, crude, unmannered, loutish, uncreative, dull, etc, Pinkerton?
No doubt after months of formfilling in quadriplicate and delays, you
will refuse to sanction even a little opamp gainclone if it is likely
to give anyone any pleasure. Thanks, but no thanks. We saw your sort of
control freaks in charge in the Soviet Union already; they ground it to
a halt. You and Pinkerton are harbingers of death, not of light and
life. You two, and your trail of goosestepping "engineers" and
hangerson, are a walking, talking nightmare to those of us who do hi-fi
for pleasure.

We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by law is
expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And all the better for
it.

You are nor wanted in tube conferences, Krueger, Pinkerton, and all the
other control freak "engineers" on a crusade. So **** off.

Andre Jute

[[email protected]]

>We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by law is
>expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And all the better for
>it.

Mr. McCoy:

So, does Ireland have a written constitution? England does not. In the
US, you would be referring to the 9th and 10th amendments (the "Bill of
Rights"). The issue being your use of the word "expressly" which
requires an explicit reference. But you are referring only to societies
based on English Law, vs. those based on Roman Law. So, those here from
France or Spain, and certain Parishes in Louisiana (US) and elsewhere
are subject to Roman Law, where the derivation of power is from the
state, and not from the people. You do come up with remarkably ignorant
analogies.

However, within Usenet, we almost all do have the privilege of calling
it as we see it. You do have a great deal of time on your hands and
have a lot of bile to spew. Enjoy. It must do you some good even if you
are entirely unconcerned over any collateral damage. I suppose a rich
and full fantasy life is marginally better than no life at all, but I
do pity you.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> Yo, Pinkerton:
>>>
>>> Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which
>>> is rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your
>>> expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your
>>> total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube
>>> conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
>>> negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing
>>> maliciously and pettily.
>>
>>> If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to
>>> find and read the post you responded to, to type and
>>> send you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or
>>> over 50 hours every month to ruin other people's glee
>>> in their hobby
>>
>>> What's your excuse?
>>
>> No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of
>> hype and false claims.
>
> Only the most monumentally stupid and the most
> monumentally arrogant people ever have such certainty in
> their own judgement as you and Pinkerton exhibit,
> Krueger.

Training in the hard sciences may tend to increase one's propensities in
that direction. Learning that some things definately don't work, and others
definately do has this effect on one's thinking. That which is clear becomes
obvious.

> Your determination to control through your
> public nastiness the activities of people even in their
> harmless hobbies is sociopathic.

Control??? Surely you Jest! I just post opinions like everybody else,
yourself included. People read or not, believe or not, act or not based on
their own thinking.

> I have already proved that you, Arnold Krueger, are so
> keen to make yourself appear more important than you are
> that you will lash out denigration to a group of people
> who did you no harm before the group is even specified.

Whatver that means.

> This very post above to which you are responding proves
> that Stewart Pinkerton is so keen to lash out pain to
> others that he spends a quarter of his working life
> ruining the pleasure in their hobby of posters to a tube
> conference where Pinkerton has absolutely no business,
> where it has been repeatedly made clear to him that he
> isn't wanted, where his attempt to prove that his way is
> better (his dumb KISASS design) ended in a humilating
> failure, where his lies are constantly exposed, where no
> secret is made of the fact that he is despised for being
> scum to a greater extent even than you are.

Next time, you might not hold your feelings back!

>> The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty
>> pathetic, as this post fragment from rec.audio.pro
>> illustrates:

> Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may
> follow?

I have no such position, so no appointment is necessary.

>> "Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to
>> believe that tubes automatically impart some kind of
>> magic fairy dust, so manufacturers exploit that."

> So what? It's their business and their money.


Right, so when people encounter diverse opinons, they can do their business
and spend their money as those diverse opinions affect their personal
opinions or not.

As we say in the US: "It's a free country". Of course we're not totally free
in the sense of anarchism, but we do have a fair amount of lattitude.

> Why is it
> so disturbing to you little control freaks that people
> hear something different from you?

Disturbed? I'm sitting here smiling while you are obviously, again as we say
in the US: "Dancing on the ceiling".

> What has manufacturing hype to do with the DIYers on RAT?

They appear to be customers for manufactured goods such as tubes,
transformers, and other electronic parts.

> How does what manufacturers do justify Pinkerton's foul
> manners and destructive lunging around other people's
> hobbies? Or yours, for that matter, Krueger?

There's no need to justify that which we do not do.

> It is truly sick for grown men to justify their existence
> (as you, Arnold Krueger, and Stewart Pinkerton,
> repeatedly do, as you done again above) by the disruption
> they bring to other people's innocent pleasure.

Just the facts, ma'm. ;-)

>> All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps
>> could be invested in making good sounding (SS) amps.

> Who appointed you UberFuhrer of people's hi-fi?

No appointment is required for a position that I do not fill.

>> The time could be spent other audio projects that are
>> forward-looking as opposed to backward-looking.

> And approved by you and the equally arid, useless,
> uncultured, slimy, ignorant, crude, unmannered, loutish,
> uncreative, dull, etc, Pinkerton?

There are no such persons, except in your fevered little mind, Jute or
whatever your name really is.

> No doubt after months
> of formfilling in quadriplicate and delays, you will
> refuse to sanction even a little opamp gainclone if it is
> likely to give anyone any pleasure.

Huh?

I did no such thing.

> Thanks, but no
> thanks. We saw your sort of control freaks in charge in
> the Soviet Union already; they ground it to a halt. You
> and Pinkerton are harbingers of death, not of light and
> life. You two, and your trail of goosestepping
> "engineers" and hangerson, are a walking, talking
> nightmare to those of us who do hi-fi for pleasure.

What's wrong with doing hifi for pleasure in the context of modern
technology?

> We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by
> law is expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And
> all the better for it.

Works for me. One of the things that is not forbidden is posting my opinions
on various newsgroups. It's comforting to know that what I do is expressly
permitted by constitution and usage.


> You are nor wanted in tube conferences, Krueger,
> Pinkerton, and all the other control freak "engineers" on
> a crusade. So **** off.

You seem upset Mr. Jute. Are we having a bad day? ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Andre Jute said to ****-for-Brains:

> > The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post
> > fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates:

> Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may follow?

Indeed. We do know some of the Krooborg's hobbies. For one, he spends most
of his waking hours inventing rationalizations for his consuming envy. The
Beast is envious of other people's material success (witness his whining
about being attacked by "millionaires"). He's also envious of others'
education, as shown by his compulsive "debating trade" hyping of his own
half-assed version of a BSEE. And when it comes to professional
accomplishments, one need only examine Turdborg's expletive-loaded attacks
on John Atkinson, Paul Bamborough, Glenn Zelniker, and Jim Johnston to see
how depraved Mr. **** is.

Even so, one might consider Krooger's conflagrations of envy to be just a
personality flaw, or perhaps a manifestation of his mental illness. To that
objection, I would counter that an even more inane hobby Mr. **** indulges
in is his crack-brained, phoney religiosity. On the one hand, he professes
to be a "Christian", but on the other, his behavior is as un-Christian as
you can get without commiting violent crimes. And what, I'd also ask, does
Krooger's devotion to superstition and flummery say about his professed
love of "science"? Actually I wouldn't ask because I already know.

Somebody recently suggested a few prescription drugs that might help
Krooger deal with his decayed mental faculties. Maybe Turdy can tell us if
he asked his doctor about them and whether he plans to get any
prescriptions that will enable him to move a little closer to the real
world.

[George M. Middius]

Peter Wieck said:

> the 9th and 10th amendments (the "Bill of Rights")
[snip]
> You do come up with remarkably ignorant analogies.

Once again, from the top, please.

[[email protected]]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.

There it is, George. In writing and not in Mr. McCoy's inflamed
imagination. No sin not to know this, most Americans don't, for sure.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[George M. Middius]

Wiecky whined:

> Amendment IX
> Amendment X
> There it is, George. In writing and not in Mr. McCoy's inflamed
> imagination. No sin not to know this, most Americans don't, for sure.

The Bill of Rights is not just the 9th and 10th Amendments. It's all of the
first 10, i.e. I through X. This is the second time I've quibbled with your
half-assed phrasing, and here you are, again, denying that you said what
Google shows you did say.

Could it be that the irascible and temperamental Jute is right about you?

[[email protected]]

Mr. Middius:

Mr. McCoy referred to a specific aspect of the rights of the people.
Those aspects in the AMERICAN constitution are described in the 9th and
10th amendments. There are no such words in the non-written British
constitution, of course. I have no clue as to the Irish constitution.
These rights are NOT protected in France amongst many other countries
under Roman Law.

The Bill of Rights, being amendments 1-10 go over some specifics, of
course. But the critical and continuing protections We Americans are
privileged to are far more protected by 9 and 10 than by 1-8. It is 9
and 10 that cover that critical aspect of English Law: What is not
forbidden is permitted. Which is what Mr. McCoy alluded to in his
blanket statement albeit with far too many adjectives. Sadly, in 'real
life' that statement applies to about 15% of the world's population, or
less, and not even across the English Channel.

So, don't attempt to hang your hat on 1-8, as those are *specific*
protections and of an entirely different nature than the last two. If
all that existed were 1-8, then the Federal Government would have the
right to invade privacy, legislate morality, limit movement, property
rights and various other quite personal issues as they would *not
necessarily* be protected a-priori. DO once read the US Constitution
for content. It is a fascinating document. Well, you don't read anyway,
even the words of your Idol, so go ahead and develop a few more months
of 100% attack-mutt posts. Mr. McCoy must be proud of you as you are
most useful to him.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Patrick Turner]

Andre Jute wrote:

> Yo, Pinkerton:
>
> Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is
> rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to
> tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607
> messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
> negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and
> pettily.
>
> If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read
> the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070
> minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other
> people's glee in their hobby
>
> What's your excuse?
>
> Andre Jute

I doubt he has any excuse, and asking for an apology won't get us a
result.

He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to
make blankets,
and soaking wet blankets at that.

Was it 4,607 messages?

Who cares? if he'd posted 4,607,000 messages it will not change the fact
that
tube amps are here to stay because people prefer them and nothing,
abolutely nothing,
Oinkerton sqeals about will change this fact.

I cannot think of one single contribution that Oinkerton has made to this
group to further tubecraft.

What he has succeeded in doing is establish that people like him have ZERO
credibility
with regard to audio design, and his credibility was permanently
dis-established
when he had the utter supidity to promote the idea that you could build a
solid state amp with
as few parts as the 300B SET and without any NFB, at about the time you
propsed a simple 300B amp
could be had using a 300B and a single 417 driver/input tube and an OPT.
When we did allow him to use 12dB of NFB since that is about how much
there is internally within
a 300B when loaded, he still came up with ZERO worth building.

He did rattle on about some supposedly simple design, but then proceeded
to NEVER BUILD IT
OR TEST IT, and only those who persue their convictions and demonstrate to
all
the viability of their designs will ever gain my respect, or the respect
of anyone else I suspect.

Don't worry Andre, Oinkerton is a fool I can ignore so easily!
Months go by and there isn't anything he says which I feel i need to
discuss with him.

I have no wish to stifle those who would challenge pet theories expressed
here if only they would
remain scholarly and intellectual about it.

When they don't conduct themselves towards the technical issues raised
then i find there is a lot
I can ignore.

And when they are here to merely sling mud and bellittle people to make
themselves look grand
in their own eyes ( but fools in the eyes of all really intelligent ppl
here then ) then
I hope they don't mind our disdain.

Patrick Turner.

[[email protected]]

>He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to
>make blankets, and soaking wet blankets at that.

Patrick:

Much as I agree with you on Mr. Pinkerton being well over the edge in
his irrational reaction to Mr. McCoy, it is a bit more like him going
into rec.quiltmakers and railing against an individual attempting to
dominate the forum by demanding that all participants use only a
specific type of thread, cloth and stitch pattern. The brute fact of
the matter is that Mr. McCoy and Mr. Pinkerton richly deserve each
other and require each other in order to be fulfilled. If that were not
the case, Mr. McCoy would not start thread after thread chasing his
personal demons, and Mr. Pinkerton would ignore the entirety, much less
start threads of his own.

The latest threads have suggested strongly that neither of them is
worth a damn as a technician, neither of them is worth a damn as a
designer, and I expect both of them would be entirely lost without a
cookbook. Now, and at the same time, writing for myself, I am not a
designer (nor have I ever claimed to be), my predilections are to
repairing and upgrading of existing equipment... A LOT of understanding
of faults both initial and eventual come out of this experience, as
well as the correction thereof... permanent correction, not just
replacement of burnt parts until the next failure. So, my comments on
the techniques and designs of others are based on the results
as-reported over claims-made. I expect that most *any* one in this
venue could do a creditable job of following a cookbook-design, or even
modify-with-guidance such a design. But in the case of these two, there
is a whole bunch of smoke-and-mirrors, exaggerated claims and dubious
results.

I would go so far as to believe that Mr. McCoy might at one time have
take great pleasure from his hobby, and even have something to offer
were it not delivered from the Burning Bush and were he not to expect
us to accept it as "received wisdom". I expect that Mr. Pinkerton took
or takes no such pleasure. And apart from their mutual dislike and
various pathologies, shared and individual, both of them are
desparately unhappy individuals.

If they would both get off their bully pulpits and get on with the
enjoyment of tubes (and about anything else audio), life would be
infinitely better for them certainly. Maybe even for us, even though a
constant source of darkly amusing silliness would be removed from our
lives.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 24 Feb 2006 05:19:13 -0800, " > wrote:

>>He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to
>>make blankets, and soaking wet blankets at that.
>
>Patrick:
>
>Much as I agree with you on Mr. Pinkerton being well over the edge in
>his irrational reaction to Mr. McCoy, it is a bit more like him going
>into rec.quiltmakers and railing against an individual attempting to
>dominate the forum by demanding that all participants use only a
>specific type of thread, cloth and stitch pattern. The brute fact of
>the matter is that Mr. McCoy and Mr. Pinkerton richly deserve each
>other and require each other in order to be fulfilled. If that were not
>the case, Mr. McCoy would not start thread after thread chasing his
>personal demons, and Mr. Pinkerton would ignore the entirety, much less
>start threads of his own.

Hmmm A point well made. Time to stop feeding the trolls.

>The latest threads have suggested strongly that neither of them is
>worth a damn as a technician, neither of them is worth a damn as a
>designer, and I expect both of them would be entirely lost without a
>cookbook.

That's fightin' talk, pilgrim! I have no idea how you come to that
conclusion about me, but I'd be interested to debate design specifics
if you have a problem with anything I've said.

> I expect that most *any* one in this
>venue could do a creditable job of following a cookbook-design, or even
>modify-with-guidance such a design. But in the case of these two, there
>is a whole bunch of smoke-and-mirrors, exaggerated claims and dubious
>results.

Never used smoke and mirrors in my life, and I've been producing
original designs (and getting paid for it) for more than 35 years.

>I would go so far as to believe that Mr. McCoy might at one time have
>take great pleasure from his hobby, and even have something to offer
>were it not delivered from the Burning Bush and were he not to expect
>us to accept it as "received wisdom". I expect that Mr. Pinkerton took
>or takes no such pleasure.

Your expectation is incorrect.

> And apart from their mutual dislike and
>various pathologies, shared and individual, both of them are
>desparately unhappy individuals.

Not me, sunbeam, I just don't suffer fools like Jute.

>If they would both get off their bully pulpits and get on with the
>enjoyment of tubes (and about anything else audio), life would be
>infinitely better for them certainly.

Ah well, I'm afraid that my audio life would be much worse with tubes,
it's known as progress..........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[[email protected]]

>Not me, sunbeam, I just don't suffer fools like Jute.

If you stop chasing McCoy, he will have no choice but to rant in a
vacuum. Whatever your past accomplishments may have been as an
engineer, technician or designer, they are now lost in the flames and
smoke. That forces a casual observer into believing that the two of you
are cut from the same cloth and trained on the same knee.

If this is not the case, you will stop chasing your personal white
whale and get on with your life. And as this is rec.audio.tubes, you
will generally have to have some respect for the medium if you wish to
participate in a positive way. Again, writing for myself, I have a
pretty broad array of equipment that includes three separate tube amps,
three tube tuners, two tube pre-amps, and a couple of oddballs like a
multiplex decoder. Tubes are unabashedly good fun. Their action is
"visible" and there is a certain appeal somewhere between Flash Gordon
and Rube Goldberg in their use.

Would I transport a tube system to provide sound in a critical
application? Not hardly. I have solid-state amps that I can toss
against the wall, pretty much abuse in any way except soaking for that.
But can it be very relaxing to sit with the cat on my lap, reading a
good (but not very engaging) book and listening to Mozart on equipment
that is nearly as old as I am and still sounds wonderful....? you bet
it is, especially with a fire going, my wife on the other end of the
couch and a glass of single-malt beside me.

Progress is a variable taken by choice, not an absolute requirement to
live.

And, on an absolute scale, our erstwhile least controlled fulminator
here, Mr. Allison has managed to cool his jets lately and even be
helpful on occasion. So, do you wish to align with the 'dark side' and
provide Mr. McCoy with the energy he needs to live, or simply ignore
the silly little git and get on with it?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[George M. Middius]

Wiecky said:

> So, do you wish to align with the 'dark side' and
> provide Mr. McCoy with the energy he needs to live, or simply ignore
> the silly little git and get on with it?

We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't unanimous, so his jones kept
him going. Maybe you have some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on
an unmoderated group?

[[email protected]]

>We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't unanimous, so his jones kept
>him going. Maybe you have some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on
>an unmoderated group?

Well, Steve Dinius is no longer a plague at rec.antiques.radio+phono. I
cannot write for other groups, but he did spread himself.

Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny the blood, the
tick will die. The term "freezing out" assumes active participation,
any activity requires energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore
the pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually leave, to go
somewhere else to get the energy they need to survive.

One more thing required for this to work... the impetus will not come
from another silly little git with a 100% without exception record of
attack-mutt posts going back 4 or more months. Such an individual may
well be the target, not the marksman.

Peter WIeck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny
> the blood, the tick will die. The term "freezing out"
> assumes active participation, any activity requires
> energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore the
> pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually
> leave, to go somewhere else to get the energy they need
> to survive.

Not true at RAO.

For example, I haven't responded to any posts by Dave Weil for a number of
years, but he still routinely attacks me here.

For example, a number of us includeing Pinkerton banded together and vowed
to not respond to any posts by Middius.We held firm for maybe over a year.
Note that Middius is still posting here quite vigorously.

[[email protected]]

Difficulties at first blush:

I.... but he still.....

A number..... is still....

Ticks feed on blood. They are pretty much indiscriminate as to whose
blood it might be. If not your blood, someone else's. So. Just let it
not be you that feeds them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Difficulties at first blush:
>
> I.... but he still.....
>
> A number..... is still....
>
> Ticks feed on blood. They are pretty much indiscriminate
> as to whose blood it might be. If not your blood, someone
> else's. So. Just let it not be you that feeds them.

Ticks feed each other, and thus can live forever no matter what you
personally or even a small group of people do.

That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved.

[[email protected]]

>That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved.

You don't read so well do you? If it's not your blood involved why
should you care? Writing for myself, if I am burnt in effigy and I am
entirely unaware of it, I could care less. If I am burnt in effigy and
there is no direct or indirect threat to me and my family, I might
care... for about a hummingbird heartbeat. This is USENET, not a tea
room. Individuals write and claim to do things here that they would
never do in public view, and in many cases never did anyway. They use
the keyboard to make up for their poor, lonely, spavined little lives
as they can be anything they want on the other side of the screen.

So, let these ticks suck on each other. That will leave the rest of us
able to enjoy the hobby and the parts and pieces that go with it... in
the real world. Put another way, since you won't control them, it
leaves you only with the option of controlling yourself. And if you
can't do that, you are no better than the worst.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

>> That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved.

> You don't read so well do you?

a little frustrated eh?

unable to take responsibility for what you just said, eh?

> If it's not your blood
> involved why should you care?

Because it is my blood that is involved. the ticks entertain themselves with
stories about how horrible of a person that I am.

> Writing for myself, if I am
> burnt in effigy and I am entirely unaware of it, I could
> care less.

When a once-productive newsgroup is turned into a field of ticks, its a bit
sad.

> If I am burnt in effigy and there is no direct
> or indirect threat to me and my family, I might care...
> for about a hummingbird heartbeat. This is USENET, not a
> tea room. Individuals write and claim to do things here
> that they would never do in public view, and in many
> cases never did anyway. They use the keyboard to make up
> for their poor, lonely, spavined little lives as they can
> be anything they want on the other side of the screen.

Totally agreed. You've explained Middius to a t.

> So, let these ticks suck on each other. That will leave
> the rest of us able to enjoy the hobby and the parts and
> pieces that go with it... in the real world.

The real world is mostly elswhere.

> Put another
> way, since you won't control them, it leaves you only
> with the option of controlling yourself. And if you can't
> do that, you are no better than the worst.

The good news is that RAO is not the only audio newsgroup. But you were
telling us how we could save the world by not feeding ticks, and that
doesn't always work. You were painting a very simplistic picture of
newsgroup pathologies.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> Wiecky stamps his pointy little feet.
>
>>> We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't
>>> unanimous, so his jones kept him going. Maybe you have
>>> some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on an
>>> unmoderated group?
>
>> Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny
>> the blood, the tick will die. The term "freezing out"
>> assumes active participation, any activity requires
>> energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore the
>> pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually
>> leave, to go somewhere else to get the energy they need
>> to survive.
>
> I done told you, we tried that already, but it wasn't a
> unified effort.

It couldn't be, because I wasn't the problem and enough people could see
that.

The problem is you, Middius. You're completely non-productive.

[Glenn Richards]

Andre Jute wrote:

> [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]

Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the
truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

For example:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed
WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade. Fortunately in
Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a
friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but
you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern
cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS,
traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the
difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all
you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit".

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:18:25 +0000, Glenn Richards
> wrote:

>Andre Jute wrote:
>
>> [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]
>
>Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
>always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the
>truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.
>
>For example:
>
>If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
>you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".
>
I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an
alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals
for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification.

>If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
>"cloth-eared idiot".
>
I don't believe he has ever objected to such a view, given that it is
an expression of personal preference. In terms of what constitutes a
better amplifier - that is another matter. A good amplifier is one
which amplifies and does not screw with the signal in any other way.
In general solid state amps beat valve amps, although there are some
good valve amps which are a match for SS.

>If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
>hearing damage at birth".
>
A possibility that is worthy of examination, although it is equally
possible that the hearing damage occurred at a later stage. Hearing
damage of some kind is more or less implied because only thus can one
explain the inability to hear all the crap that comes along with the
music from vinyl.

>Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed
>WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).
>
Given a high enough bit rate, quite true. I have never been able to -
and I have never known anyone else who could - distinguish a 320k MP3
from the CD original.

>Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade. Fortunately in
>Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a
>friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but
>you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern
>cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS,
>traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the
>difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all
>you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit".
>

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for
much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you
can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it.

>But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
>estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
>Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.
>

>Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
>extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

I believe you are mistaken about the Pinkerton point of view - not
surprising as what you have presented here is not a summary of his
views, but of those claimed for him by his enemies. His views are
genuinely held, and reasonably presented in the face of a great deal
of stupid arrogance from a few well known sources. He does have a
rather short fuse, though, and doesn't suffer fools anything like as
long as - say - Jim Lesurf or me.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Glenn Richards]

Don Pearce wrote:

> I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an
> alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals
> for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification.

No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that
doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion.

You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with
me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall
you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton.
And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults
and name-calling.

The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without
****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in
the group.

Something that Pinkerton could do very well to learn from.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

[Arny Krueger]

"Glenn Richards" > wrote in
message
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>> [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]
>
> Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks
> of nature who is always right, even when he's been proved
> wrong. "Never let the truth/facts get in the way of a
> good argument", etc etc.
> For example:
>
> If you can hear a difference between two
> interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying",
> "arrogant" or "stupid".

Or merely a dupe. However, that's actually often a consequence of
"arrogant" and "stupid".

> If you think valve amps sound better than solid state,
> you're a "cloth-eared idiot".

Or merely a dupe.

> If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've
> "suffered severe hearing damage at birth".

Or merely a dupe.

> Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or
> uncompressed WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

On the best of all days and with high bitrates that can be true.

> Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

Oh come on - that's the essence of any disagreement. How many times do you
see people arguing that they both agree with each other?

> Fortunately in Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from
> that camp, although I do have a friend who's a close
> second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but you're
> wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi,
> apparently modern cars are "too powerful", and have "too
> many safety devices fitted" (ABS, traction control,
> stability control, the stuff that often makes the
> difference between a near miss and a crash). And
> according to him, all you need to do to be safe is "stay
> within the speed limit".

Depends on how you interpret "spped limit". I interpret that as "driving in
accordance with the conditions".

> But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994
> Astra diesel estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm
> in a 3-year-old A4 Quattro... which could stop from 60mph
> faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Really good brakes have been the undoing of many an over-confident driver. I
have good reason to believe that there are a wide range of brakes that stop
in about the same distance on ice or wet pavement, sophisiticated braking
technologies notwithstanding.

> Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's
> almost a less extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

Good job of misrepresenting Mr. Pinkerton - it seems like today is "beat up
an objectivist" day around here.

[Arny Krueger]

"Glenn Richards" > wrote in
message
> Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> I think you will find he has always presented - quite
>> correctly - an alternative option. You are mistaken.
>> There are certain individuals for whom he has moved
>> towards the "liar" option, with justification.
>
> No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts
> something that doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of
> opinion.

Something that no subjectivist has ever done, ever. ;-)

> You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You
> may disagree with me that cables make a difference to the
> sound, for example (as I recall you did), but you do so
> in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton. And, most
> importantly, you do it without resorting to personal
> insults and name-calling.

In many cases you may be looking at just the recent activity related to a
long-running controversy. If the person Pinkerton is addressing isn't
insulting him this week, that's not to say that they didn't insult him last
week.

> The end result of which is that you can have a sensible
> debate without ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an
> unknown number of lurkers) in the group.

Not at all. Just about any time I want to I can repeatedly challenge a
subjectivist in a perfectly civil way, no abuse, name-calling or anything
like it, and just watch time pass and postings pass until the explosion of
abuse. I call it "The prerequisite subjectivist personal attack". ;-)

> Something that Pinkerton could do very well to learn from.

What we've all learned is that the most extreme behavior around here has
come from the so-called subjectivst side of the debate.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> If you can hear a difference between two
>> interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying",
>> "arrogant" or "stupid".


>Or merely a dupe. However, that's actually often a consequence of
>"arrogant" and "stupid".


Thanks for keeping 3 newsgroups civil and on-topic again, Arny.

Are you really sure that Middius made you do it this time, and that
you're not part of the problem? ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:15:27 -0600, flipper > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:58:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for
>>much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you
>>can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it.
>>
>
>Funny you should use that as an example because, according to the
>story, there was once at least one state legislature in the good ole
>USA that did just that: decided pi was ridiculous and passed a law
>defining it shall be 3.
>
>If I remember correctly they immediately reversed themselves after the
>bill's sponsor, having made whatever point it was, explained you can't
>do that.

It was Indiana, home of the Hoosiers:

From 'The Straight Dope'

"Although the attempt to legislate pi was ultimately unsuccessful, it
did come pretty close. In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen
county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of
Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and
amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some
accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2,
as we shall see. The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able
to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend
the rest of your natural life in Indiana.

Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that the
speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin and Record
apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a rational number.
"Since the rule in present use [presumably pi equals 3.14159...] fails
to work ..., it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading
in the practical applications," the bill declared. Instead,
mathematically inclined Hoosiers could take their pick among the
following formulae:

(1) The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 5/4
to 4. In other words, pi equals 16/5 or 3.2

(2) The area of a circle equals the area of a square whose side is 1/4
the circumference of the circle. Working this out algebraically, we
see that pi must be equal to 4.

(3) The ratio of the length of a 90 degree arc to the length of a
segment connecting the arc's two endpoints is 8 to 7. This gives us pi
equal to the square root of 2 x 16/7, or about 3.23.

There may have been other values for pi as well; the bill was so
confusingly written that it's impossible to tell exactly what Goodwin
was getting at. Mathematician David Singmaster says he found six
different values in the bill, plus three more in Goodwin's other
writings and comments, for a total of nine.

Lord knows how all this was supposedly to clarify pi or anything else,
but as we shall see, they do things a little differently in Indiana.
Bill #246 was initially sent to the Committee on Swamp Lands. The
committee deliberated gravely on the question, decided it was not the
appropriate body to consider such a measure and turned it over to the
Committee on Education. The latter committee gave the bill a "pass"
recommendation and sent it on to the full House, which approved it
unanimously, 67 to 0.

In the state Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on
Temperance. (One begins to suspect it was silly season in the Indiana
legislature at the time.) It passed first reading, but that's as far
as it got. According to The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and
Interesting Numbers, the bill "was held up before a second reading due
to the intervention of C.A. Waldo, a professor of mathematics [at
Purdue] who happened to be passing through." Waldo, describing the
experience later, wrote, "A member [of the legislature] then showed
the writer [i.e., Waldo] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him
if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He
declined the courtesy with thanks, remarking that he was acquainted
with as many crazy people as he cared to know."

The bill was postponed indefinitely and died a quiet death. According
to a local newspaper, however, "Although the bill was not acted on
favorably no one who spoke against it intimated that there was
anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Senators who
spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of
the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for
legislation."

As for Representative T.I. Record--well, I haven't been able to
confirm this. But some say he changed his name to Quayle."
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:59:59 +0000, Glenn Richards
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an
>> alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals
>> for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification.
>
>No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that
>doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion.

Not at all - only when they attempt to support their bull**** with
lies and ignorance. You are of course a perfect case in point, which
is no doubt why you've now crawled out of the woodwork.

>You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with
>me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall
>you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton.
>And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults
>and name-calling.
>
>The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without
>****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in
>the group.

I don't worry about ****ing off stupid, lying, ******s like you. Clear
enough for you?

Don's right, Jim has the patience of a saint, and Don's a pretty
laid-back guy himself. I'm of a more combative nature. Always nice to
have a cross-section of personalities in any discussion forum.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:18:25 +0000, Glenn Richards
> wrote:

>If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
>you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

In your case, the evidence is overwhelming for all three.......

>If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
>"cloth-eared idiot".

Not something I've ever said, but when did you ever let the facts get
in the way of a good story?

>If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
>hearing damage at birth".

Again, you'd have to define 'better'.

>Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed
>WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

Indeed it can be, given an adequate bitrate. AAC is even better.

>Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

In your case, invariably true.

> Fortunately in
>Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a
>friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but
>you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern
>cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS,
>traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the
>difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all
>you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit".

Clearly, you associate with idiots. Why am I not surprised?

>But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
>estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
>Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.
>
>Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
>extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Harry Lavo]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:15:27 -0600, flipper > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:58:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for
>>>much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you
>>>can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it.
>>>
>>
>>Funny you should use that as an example because, according to the
>>story, there was once at least one state legislature in the good ole
>>USA that did just that: decided pi was ridiculous and passed a law
>>defining it shall be 3.
>>
>>If I remember correctly they immediately reversed themselves after the
>>bill's sponsor, having made whatever point it was, explained you can't
>>do that.
>
> It was Indiana, home of the Hoosiers:
>
> From 'The Straight Dope'
>
> "Although the attempt to legislate pi was ultimately unsuccessful, it
> did come pretty close. In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen
> county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of
> Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and
> amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some
> accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2,
> as we shall see. The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able
> to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend
> the rest of your natural life in Indiana.
>
> Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that the
> speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin and Record
> apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a rational number.
> "Since the rule in present use [presumably pi equals 3.14159...] fails
> to work ..., it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading
> in the practical applications," the bill declared. Instead,
> mathematically inclined Hoosiers could take their pick among the
> following formulae:
>
> (1) The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 5/4
> to 4. In other words, pi equals 16/5 or 3.2
>
> (2) The area of a circle equals the area of a square whose side is 1/4
> the circumference of the circle. Working this out algebraically, we
> see that pi must be equal to 4.
>
> (3) The ratio of the length of a 90 degree arc to the length of a
> segment connecting the arc's two endpoints is 8 to 7. This gives us pi
> equal to the square root of 2 x 16/7, or about 3.23.
>
> There may have been other values for pi as well; the bill was so
> confusingly written that it's impossible to tell exactly what Goodwin
> was getting at. Mathematician David Singmaster says he found six
> different values in the bill, plus three more in Goodwin's other
> writings and comments, for a total of nine.
>
> Lord knows how all this was supposedly to clarify pi or anything else,
> but as we shall see, they do things a little differently in Indiana.
> Bill #246 was initially sent to the Committee on Swamp Lands. The
> committee deliberated gravely on the question, decided it was not the
> appropriate body to consider such a measure and turned it over to the
> Committee on Education. The latter committee gave the bill a "pass"
> recommendation and sent it on to the full House, which approved it
> unanimously, 67 to 0.
>
> In the state Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on
> Temperance. (One begins to suspect it was silly season in the Indiana
> legislature at the time.) It passed first reading, but that's as far
> as it got. According to The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and
> Interesting Numbers, the bill "was held up before a second reading due
> to the intervention of C.A. Waldo, a professor of mathematics [at
> Purdue] who happened to be passing through." Waldo, describing the
> experience later, wrote, "A member [of the legislature] then showed
> the writer [i.e., Waldo] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him
> if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He
> declined the courtesy with thanks, remarking that he was acquainted
> with as many crazy people as he cared to know."
>
> The bill was postponed indefinitely and died a quiet death. According
> to a local newspaper, however, "Although the bill was not acted on
> favorably no one who spoke against it intimated that there was
> anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Senators who
> spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of
> the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for
> legislation."
>
> As for Representative T.I. Record--well, I haven't been able to
> confirm this. But some say he changed his name to Quayle."

Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:18:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>> The end result of which is that you can have a sensible
>> debate without ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an
>> unknown number of lurkers) in the group.
>
>Not at all. Just about any time I want to I can repeatedly challenge a
>subjectivist in a perfectly civil way, no abuse, name-calling or anything
>like it, and just watch time pass and postings pass until the explosion of
>abuse. I call it "The prerequisite subjectivist personal attack". ;-)

It's just a shame that even though you *can*, you *don't*. Anyone can
look at your exchanges with Jenn to see your abuse pattern. It's a
classic case study in Kruegerkultur.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>>But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
>>estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
>>Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.
>>
>>Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
>>extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.
>
>Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
>driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

You need to get yourself a Cobra.

[Eiron]

dave weil wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> > wrote:

>>Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
>>driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.
>
> You need to get yourself a Cobra.

It would fall apart. You need a Ford Falcon to cope with the rough roads of
Leicestershire.

--
Eiron

There's something scary about stupidity made coherent - Tom Stoppard.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Harry Lavo" > wrote:


> Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

[Harry Lavo]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>
>> Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.
>
> Let's call the whole thing off .....

Good one! :-)

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:04:36 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>>But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
>>>estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
>>>Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.
>>>
>>>Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
>>>extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.
>>
>>Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
>>driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.
>
>You need to get yourself a Cobra.

A guy in the next village has one, a 'girly' 289 that he dare not take
out when the roads are wet! I may have 'only' 250 galloping horses
under my bonnet, but I can apply all of them to wet or muddy
tarmac........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:05:26 -0500, "Harry Lavo" >
wrote:

>"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...

<about legislating the value of PI>

>> As for Representative T.I. Record--well, I haven't been able to
>> confirm this. But some say he changed his name to Quayle."
>
>Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

I see that Harry is as fact-challenged as ever - it was potato(e).

Tomato is an urban myth, just like the supposed superiority of
long-term monadic testing in audio ....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:01:32 +0000, Eiron > wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>> > wrote:
>
>>>Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
>>>driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.
>>
>> You need to get yourself a Cobra.
>
>It would fall apart. You need a Ford Falcon to cope with the rough roads of
>Leicestershire.

Ain't that the truth! :-(

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:38:02 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>
>> Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.
>
>Let's call the whole thing off .....

As ever, Harry got it wrong - it was potato(e).

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Iain Churches]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>
>
>> Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.
>
> Let's call the whole thing off .....

Excellent Jenn. It is nice to see someone benefit from the
advantages of a formal musical eductation:-))

regards

Iain

[Clyde Slick]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.
>>
>> Let's call the whole thing off .....
>
> Excellent Jenn. It is nice to see someone benefit from the
> advantages of a formal musical eductation:-))
>
> regards
>
> Iain


I would be more reticient to show my age.



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

[Harry Lavo]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:38:02 GMT, Jenn >
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.
>>
>>Let's call the whole thing off .....
>
> As ever, Harry got it wrong - it was potato(e).

Gosh, it was worth two replies!!

Tomato, tomatoe....
Potato, potatoe...
(As Jenn says) Let's call the whole thing off.... :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.
>>>>
>>>> Let's call the whole thing off .....
>>>
>>> Excellent Jenn. It is nice to see someone benefit from the
>>> advantages of a formal musical eductation:-))
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Iain
>>
>>
>> I would be more reticient to show my age.
>
>
> One can be familiar with the works of Mozart
> without having been born 250 years ago.
>

Was he the guy who did
"Who's That Little Doggie in The Window?"



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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > One can be familiar with the works of Mozart
> > without having been born 250 years ago.
> >

> Was he the guy who did
> "Who's That Little Doggie in The Window?"

ITYM "How much is that doggy in the window?"

http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/doggy.html ;-)

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Glenn Richards > wrote:
> Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
> always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the
> truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

> For example:

> If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
> you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

Assuming those cables are specified for the job in hand it's a fair enough
comment. Of course that doesn't stop some 'interconnect' suppliers from
making cables which modify the sound in some way.

> If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
> "cloth-eared idiot".

Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

> If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
> hearing damage at birth".

Have you ever tried copying vinyl to CD then running an A/B comparison? I
have - and you can't tell the difference.

Do it the other way around and anyone can.

This should tell you something.

Vinyl can 'sound' better than CD to some as it's adding to the original
recording. Not reproducing it accurately. This might give a 'pleasant'
result on some things but not on others.
It's also very unlikely that anything you have on both vinyl and CD came
from the same master - they will both have gone through a re-mastering
process which makes comparison even more difficult.

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:02:23 +0200, "Iain Churches"
> wrote:

>
>"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.
>>
>> Let's call the whole thing off .....
>
>Excellent Jenn. It is nice to see someone benefit from the
>advantages of a formal musical eductation:-))

Don't it suck, when you mis-spell education? :-)

BTW, I don't think George or even Ira would have considered this a
particularly formal piece!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:15:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Clyde Slick > wrote:
>> > One can be familiar with the works of Mozart
>> > without having been born 250 years ago.
>> >
>
>> Was he the guy who did
>> "Who's That Little Doggie in The Window?"
>
>ITYM "How much is that doggy in the window?"
>
>http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1998/doggy.html ;-)

And it wasn't Mozart, it was Merrill....... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:04:36 -0600, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>>
>>>>But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
>>>>estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
>>>>Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
>>>>extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.
>>>
>>>Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
>>>driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.
>>
>>You need to get yourself a Cobra.
>
>A guy in the next village has one, a 'girly' 289 that he dare not take
>out when the roads are wet! I may have 'only' 250 galloping horses
>under my bonnet, but I can apply all of them to wet or muddy
>tarmac........

Well, obviously I was making reference to a 427, since that's one that
could do 0-100-0 in a tick over 12 seconds.

Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
clubs in it.

[Andre Jute]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
> to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.

Do you really believe that, Dave? I thought you were in the recording
business. Surely you know that now amp whatsoever merely processes the
signal blamelessly. Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.

I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal. What I want is an
outcoming signal that sounds more like the concert hall than what the
engineers now give me. One way of doing that is by having a very
silent class A sound from devices operated along only the most linear
part of their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that the odd
and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the mix than before. Your
way of thinking appears to hold it axiomatic that a solid state device
is a paradigm of fine sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for
whatever reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The one
that works a lot better is Class A operated at high voltage and high
current into a high impedance with little or no negative feedback.

Oh yes, the solid staties' bugbear of SET. I have SET amps, several,
just as I have solid state amps, several, but I can't see why that
causes your lot such pain. I don't even prefer SET above all other amps
(if you think I do, you've been listening to that idiot Pinkerton, who
lies a lot). I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.

It may suit the crude fanatics among your cohorts to type those who
don't fit their arid lowest common denominator pattern *exactly* as
Martians but real people don't fit neatly into pigeonholes. Real people
can even love more than one amp at a time.

Ah, but I forget, in an ideal world all amps will have the same arid
sound of big ali heatsinks expanding and contracting and be equally
unlovable...

Andre Jute
And never the twain shall meet.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 1 Mar 2006 19:06:29 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:

>
>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
>> to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.
>
>Do you really believe that, Dave? I thought you were in the recording
>business. Surely you know that now amp whatsoever merely processes the
>signal blamelessly. Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
>artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.

Not above the noise floor. Being in the industry, Dave *does* know
this.

>I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal.

So don't use SET amplifiers.

>What I want is an
>outcoming signal that sounds more like the concert hall than what the
>engineers now give me. One way of doing that is by having a very
>silent class A sound from devices operated along only the most linear
>part of their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that the odd
>and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the mix than before.

I have one of those - it's solid state and has only 2nd order
distortion above the noise floor. I also have a low-bias Class AB amp
with the same characteristic.

> Your
>way of thinking appears to hold it axiomatic that a solid state device
>is a paradigm of fine sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for
>whatever reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The one
>that works a lot better is Class A operated at high voltage and high
>current into a high impedance with little or no negative feedback.

Utter nonsense, and not supported by *any* objective evidence.

>Oh yes, the solid staties' bugbear of SET. I have SET amps, several,
>just as I have solid state amps, several, but I can't see why that
>causes your lot such pain. I don't even prefer SET above all other amps
>(if you think I do, you've been listening to that idiot Pinkerton, who
>lies a lot). I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
>that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
>push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
>several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.

Which makes it even more perverse that they would claim improved
accuracy for such fundamentally crippled devices. BTW, my very first
'hi-fi' amp was a low-powered SET - but I've progressed since those
days.

>It may suit the crude fanatics among your cohorts to type those who
>don't fit their arid lowest common denominator pattern *exactly* as
>Martians but real people don't fit neatly into pigeonholes. Real people
>can even love more than one amp at a time.

Yes, but they can't sensibly believe that SET amps are more accurate.

>Ah, but I forget, in an ideal world all amps will have the same arid
>sound of big ali heatsinks expanding and contracting and be equally
>unlovable...

Actually, we *have* an ideal world, where all well-designed
amplifiers, tubed or SS, sound the same as each other, because they
sound the same as their input signal. This of course does not apply to
SET amps.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:54:19 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 07:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:04:36 -0600, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
>>>>>estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
>>>>>Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
>>>>>extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.
>>>>
>>>>Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
>>>>driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.
>>>
>>>You need to get yourself a Cobra.
>>
>>A guy in the next village has one, a 'girly' 289 that he dare not take
>>out when the roads are wet! I may have 'only' 250 galloping horses
>>under my bonnet, but I can apply all of them to wet or muddy
>>tarmac........
>
>Well, obviously I was making reference to a 427, since that's one that
>could do 0-100-0 in a tick over 12 seconds.

In the wet? :-)

>Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
>clubs in it.

And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often the driver....

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:00:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>>Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
>>clubs in it.
>
>And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often the driver....

IOW, a fun car!

[Arny Krueger]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
>> there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
>> signal rather than just amplify it.
>
> Do you really believe that, Dave?

It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?

>I thought you were in
> the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
> whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
> with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
> the music, higher order harmonics.

Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?

For example:

http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/704wavac/index5.html

Figure 8:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -28 dB
3 -38 dB
4 -60 dB
5 -62 dB
6 -60 dB
7 -62 dB
8 -83 Db (strange anomoly at 420 Hz)
9 -90 dB
10 -95 dB
11 -62 dB
12 -90 dB
13 -68 dB
14 -90 dB
15 -62 dB
16 -100 dB
17 -90 dB
18 -72 dB

Since when is not the 18th harmonic a higher order harmonic?

> I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal.


Then get a good SS amp with reasonable amounts of loop feedback!

Compare the above to the Adcom GFA 7805
http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/304adcom/index4.html

Figure 8:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -95 dB
3 -82 dB
4 -110 dB
5 -90 dB
6 -100 dB
7 -98 dB
8 -105 dB
9 -105 dB
10 -115 dB
11 -115 dB
12 -102 dB
13 -110 dB
14 -120 dB
15 -110 dB
16 -110 dB
17 -100 dB
18 -112 dB


> What
> I want is an outcoming signal that sounds more like the
> concert hall than what the engineers now give me.

So how is adding audible noise and distortion going to help that?

> One way
> of doing that is by having a very silent class A sound
> from devices operated along only the most linear part of
> their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that
> the odd and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the
> mix than before.

Wrong - the Adcom above has far less of every order of distortion than the
Wavac.

> Your way of thinking appears to hold it
> axiomatic that a solid state device is a paradigm of fine
> sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for whatever
> reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The
> one that works a lot better is Class A operated at high
> voltage and high current into a high impedance with
> little or no negative feedback.

The facts say otherwise.

[[email protected]]

Andre Jute wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> > Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here there again seems
> > to be a wish to modify the incoming signal rather than just amplify it.
>
> Do you really believe that, Dave? I thought you were in the recording
> business. Surely you know that now amp whatsoever merely processes the
> signal blamelessly. Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
> artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.
>

Yet still produce a vastly less distorted signal than any SET.

> I don't actually want to modify the incoming signal.

Then why use an SET?

What I want is an
> outcoming signal that sounds more like the concert hall than what the
> engineers now give me.

What if the music was not recorded in a concert hall?

One way of doing that is by having a very
> silent class A sound from devices operated along only the most linear
> part of their transfer curve, and tilting the transfer so that the odd
> and higher harmonics become a smaller part of the mix than before. Your
> way of thinking appears to hold it axiomatic that a solid state device
> is a paradigm of fine sound. If the paradigm doesn't satisfy, for
> whatever reason, it is time to trade it in for one that works. The one
> that works a lot better is Class A operated at high voltage and high
> current into a high impedance with little or no negative feedback.
>
An opinion not supported by the facts.


> Oh yes, the solid staties' bugbear of SET. I have SET amps, several,
> just as I have solid state amps, several, but I can't see why that
> causes your lot such pain. I don't even prefer SET above all other amps
> (if you think I do, you've been listening to that idiot Pinkerton, who
> lies a lot).

I get it, in Jute/McCoy world, truth is a lie.

I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
> that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
> push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
> several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.
>

The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
soldering practice?

> It may suit the crude fanatics among your cohorts to type those who
> don't fit their arid lowest common denominator pattern *exactly* as
> Martians but real people don't fit neatly into pigeonholes. Real people
> can even love more than one amp at a time.
>
Love what you like, but SET's are better suited to being doorstops and
paperweights than for reproducing audio signals.


> Ah, but I forget, in an ideal world all amps will have the same arid
> sound of big ali heatsinks expanding and contracting and be equally
> unlovable...
>

Actually all amps should simply amplify and in no audible way change
the signal being amplified.

..

[dave weil]

On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
> wrote:

> I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
>> that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
>> push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
>> several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.
>>
>
>The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
>soldering practice?

Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not it's "more
accurate".

Seems pretty logical to me.

[Nick Gorham]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
>>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
>>>there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
>>>signal rather than just amplify it.
>>
>>Do you really believe that, Dave?
>
>
> It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
> measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?
>
>
>>I thought you were in
>>the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
>>whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
>>with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
>>the music, higher order harmonics.
>
>
> Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
> more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?
>
> For example:
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/704wavac/index5.html
>

I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far
from a average example of a SET.

--
Nick

[Arny Krueger]

"Nick Gorham" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>
>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
>>>> there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
>>>> signal rather than just amplify it.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that, Dave?
>>
>>
>> It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing
>> lies about the measured perforamnce of the SETs his
>> ragazine reviews?
>>> I thought you were in
>>> the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
>>> whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly.
>>> Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
>>> artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.
>>
>>
>> Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he
>> reviews have far more high order harmonics than a good
>> SS amp with loop feedback? For example:
>>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/704wavac/index5.html
>>
>
> I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built
> around a 833 is far from a average example of a SET.

Regrettably, the Stereophile web site is kinda deficient in terms of reviews
of the classic SEt amps whose tests I'd like to review. John Atkinson and I
may share a preference for p-p tubes as opposed to SETs, if the SP web site
online review situation is any indication.

So here's an alternative of the few available:

http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps/304antique/index4.html

Figure 12:

Harmonic - distortion
2 -40 dB
3 -55 dB
4 -75 dB
5 -72 dB
6 -85 dB
7 -95 dB
8 -95 dB
9 -90 dB

(data runs out > 1 KHz due to Stereophile's choice)

Still about 20 dB dirtier than the SS amp, even for the highest harmonics
for which data is available.

BTW note that figure 12 is miscaptioned as being a 50 Hz test. It's labeled
on the chart as being a 100 hz test. The chart label is consistent with the
data, but the caption isn't.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:07:22 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:00:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:
>
>>>Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote a set of golf
>>>clubs in it.
>>
>>And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often the driver....
>
>IOW, a fun car!

That's one opinion. I prefer the ability to drive at significantly
higher speeds in safety, and with total control of my vehicle. For the
alternative and lots of fun, there's always the one horsepower option.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:57:58 +0000, Nick Gorham >
wrote:

>Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>
>>>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on here
>>>>there again seems to be a wish to modify the incoming
>>>>signal rather than just amplify it.
>>>
>>>Do you really believe that, Dave?
>>
>>
>> It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing lies about the
>> measured perforamnce of the SETs his ragazine reviews?
>>
>>
>>>I thought you were in
>>>the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
>>>whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly. Those
>>>with negative feedback, for instance, add artifacts to
>>>the music, higher order harmonics.
>>
>>
>> Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he reviews have far
>> more high order harmonics than a good SS amp with loop feedback?
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/704wavac/index5.html
>>
>
>I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far
>from a average example of a SET.

There's a Stuart in this thread?

OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much odd-order
distortion as PP amps, it's just that the vastly higher even-order
distortion isn't cancelled out?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:39:31 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
> wrote:
>
>> I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
>>> that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
>>> push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
>>> several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.
>>>
>>
>>The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
>>soldering practice?
>
>Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not it's "more
>accurate".
>
>Seems pretty logical to me.

That would be fine, if psychos like Jute wouldn't keep peddling this
'ultrafidelista' crap. Interestingly, while he reserves the term
ultrafidelista for 'zero feedback' SET lovers, he claims that he
himself prefers a much higher-powered PP amp with NFB. Is this guy
seriously deranged, or what?

That was indeed the ultimate rhetorical question........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:07:22 -0600, dave weil
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:00:25 +0000 (UTC), Stewart
>> Pinkerton > wrote:
>>
>>>> Not a very practical car, to be sure but you can tote
>>>> a set of golf clubs in it.
>>>
>>> And scare the crap out of your passengers! And often
>>> the driver....
>>
>> IOW, a fun car!
>
> That's one opinion. I prefer the ability to drive at
> significantly higher speeds in safety, and with total
> control of my vehicle.

Points well taken. I have a friend with a fully-restored 60s muscle car, a
428 Cougar to be exact. Its anything but the car you want to drive fast on
even a straight road (drum brakes) let alone a curved one (dead steering and
numb handling).

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:57:58 +0000, Nick Gorham
> > wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com
>>>
>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Judging by the many posts about SET etc designs on
>>>>> here there again seems to be a wish to modify the
>>>>> incoming signal rather than just amplify it.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe that, Dave?
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a fact. Or is it that John Atkisnon is publishing
>>> lies about the measured perforamnce of the SETs his
>>> ragazine reviews?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I thought you were in
>>>> the recording business. Surely you know that now amp
>>>> whatsoever merely processes the signal blamelessly.
>>>> Those with negative feedback, for instance, add
>>>> artifacts to the music, higher order harmonics.
>>>
>>>
>>> Darn that John Atkinson! Why is it that the SET amps he
>>> reviews have far more high order harmonics than a good
>>> SS amp with loop feedback?
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/704wavac/index5.html
>>>
>>
>> I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built
>> around a 833 is far from a average example of a SET.
>
> There's a Stuart in this thread?
>
> OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much
> odd-order distortion as PP amps, it's just that the
> vastly higher even-order distortion isn't cancelled out?

Good chance of that, all things considered. ;-)

There's a well-known cure for audible distortion in amplifiers, one that has
worked well for about 50 years or more in both tubed and SS amps. It's
called inverse feedback, either local or global. SETs try to minimize
inverse feedback, presumably so that they will sound appreciably different
from good amplifiers that exploit inverse feedback and sound cleaner and
smoother.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:39:31 -0600, dave weil
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as
>>> saying
>>>> that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A
>>>> triode-linked EL34 push pull amp with adjustable
>>>> negative feedback. I have PP amps too, several. I've
>>>> never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The question is why would anyone want an SET for
>>> anything more than soldering practice?
>>
>> Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not
>> it's "more accurate".
>>
>> Seems pretty logical to me.
>
> That would be fine, if psychos like Jute wouldn't keep
> peddling this 'ultrafidelista' crap. Interestingly, while
> he reserves the term ultrafidelista for 'zero feedback'
> SET lovers, he claims that he himself prefers a much
> higher-powered PP amp with NFB. Is this guy seriously
> deranged, or what?

Nahh, Jute is just following the "Tubed Equipment Marketing Manual" which
starts out:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some
of the tim"

[Nick Gorham]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>>
>>I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far
>
>>from a average example of a SET.
>
> There's a Stuart in this thread?

Sorry. Maybe if enough of us use that speeling then the fault will lie
at your end :-)

>
> OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much odd-order
> distortion as PP amps, it's just that the vastly higher even-order
> distortion isn't cancelled out?

Yes, fully aware of that thanks. Just as you are aware of the difference
between a A1 and A2 output stage.

--
Nick

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:50:43 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> That's one opinion. I prefer the ability to drive at
>> significantly higher speeds in safety, and with total
>> control of my vehicle.
>
>Points well taken. I have a friend with a fully-restored 60s muscle car, a
>428 Cougar to be exact. Its anything but the car you want to drive fast on
>even a straight road (drum brakes) let alone a curved one (dead steering and
>numb handling).

In other words, Detroit iron, the very type that you were responsible
for, Arnold.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:12:43 +0000, Nick Gorham >
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I think you are fully aware Stuart that a amp built around a 833 is far
>>
>>>from a average example of a SET.
>>
>> There's a Stuart in this thread?
>
>Sorry. Maybe if enough of us use that speeling then the fault will lie
>at your end :-)

Maybe if you check your indents, you'll find that I wasn't the one
referencing those tests.

>> OTOH, are you not aware that SETs have just as much odd-order
>> distortion as PP amps, it's just that the vastly higher even-order
>> distortion isn't cancelled out?
>
>Yes, fully aware of that thanks. Just as you are aware of the difference
>between a A1 and A2 output stage.

A2 is for schmucks. OTOH, A3 is for the intelligent. :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Iain Churches]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...


OTOH, A3 is for the intelligent. :-)

"Taxi!"

"Glenn Richards" > wrote in message
...
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>> [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]
>
> Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
> always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts
> get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.
>
> For example:
>
> If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
> you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".
>
It's a true statement

> If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
> "cloth-eared idiot".
>
Another true statement, the only thing Tubes could do is sound as good as SS
or worse, it is impossible for them to be better.

> If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
> hearing damage at birth".
>
Yet another true statment.

> Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV,
> or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).
>
And the proof that thin is not so is where?

> Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

Only becuase the brigae he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.

"Glenn Richards" > wrote in message
...
> Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an
>> alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals
>> for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification.
>
> No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that
> doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion.
>

He's always been rude and abusive to people who are rude and abusive.

> You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with
> me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall
> you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton.
> And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults and
> name-calling.
>
> The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without
> ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in the
> group.
>
> Something that Pinkerton could do very well to learn from.
>
> --
> Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
> Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/
>
> IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Mar 2006 09:08:19 -0800, "
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm on record for years, repeatedly, ad nauseam, as saying
>>> that the finest amp I ever designed is a Class A triode-linked EL34
>>> push pull amp with adjustable negative feedback. I have PP amps too,
>>> several. I've never even met a SETtie who had *only* a SET amp.
>>>
>>
>>The question is why would anyone want an SET for anything more than
>>soldering practice?
>
> Well, maybe because they like the sound, whether or not it's "more
> accurate".
>
> Seems pretty logical to me.

Fine as long as they don't claim it is more accurate than a SS amp. Jute
goes on rants about this crap and then gets ****ed when he's shown his
factual errors. That plus the lies and attack threads make him far from
logicial. I think that most of it is crap designed to pull people's chains,
and that's how he gets his fun.

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Glenn Richards" > wrote in message
>> If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
>> hearing damage at birth".
>>
> Yet another true statment.
>

Why do you act like all CD recordings have the same sound quality?
It simply isn't so and I have quite a few albums that do sound lots
better than their CD release. I also have a few albums that stand up
well against most CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to
a level the technology is capable of, but rarely delivers.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottie said:

> I have quite a few albums that do sound lots
> better than their CD release. I also have a few albums that stand up
> well against most CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to
> a level the technology is capable of, but rarely delivers.

Mikey say: Scottie insane. Go buy bananas! Lie down quick!

[Jenn]

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Glenn Richards" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> >> [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]
> >
> > Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
> > always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts
> > get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
> > you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".
> >
> It's a true statement
>
> > If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
> > "cloth-eared idiot".
> >
> Another true statement, the only thing Tubes could do is sound as good as SS
> or worse, it is impossible for them to be better.
>
> > If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
> > hearing damage at birth".
> >
> Yet another true statment.
>
> > Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV,
> > or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).
> >
> And the proof that thin is not so is where?
>
> > Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.
>
> Only becuase the brigae he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
> bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.
>
>

Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:VFKPf.135464$0G.56970@dukeread10
> > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Glenn Richards" > wrote
>> in message
>>> If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've
>>> "suffered severe hearing damage at birth".
>>>
>> Yet another true statment.
>>
>
> Why do you act like all CD recordings have the same
> sound quality?

Straw man.

> It simply isn't so and I have quite a few
> albums that do sound lots better than their CD release.

Bad mastering. So what?

> I also have a few albums that stand up well against most
> CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to a level the technology is
> capable of, but rarely delivers.

Actually, the audio CD format is capable of dynamic range and low distortion
that simply cannot be exploited with any real-world recording of live music
or music played on non-electronic instruments. Even most electronic
instruments are hard-pressed to produce truely CD quality sound.

Therefore, you probably have no CDs that actually perform to a level the
technology is capable of.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?

Having a good technical background in audio, whether formal education or
OJT, seems to help people understand the difference between actual sound
differences and illusionary sound differences. They have a good pragmatic
sense of what sounds good and what doesn't, and what makes a difference and
what doesn't.

For example, if you take a typical RAHE so-called subjectivist poster and
drop him into any of the production-related audio groups, where people work
with sound in a productive way as opposed to just consuming it, they are
typically eaten alive often in just a few days. Case in point, Harry Lavo,
several times now.

It's also interesting to recall what happened to Middius when he tried to
post in some of the more serious audio groups. Crash and burn in just a few
days. Again several times now.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 07:37:23 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:

>In article t>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Glenn Richards" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Andre Jute wrote:
>> >
>> >> [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
>> > always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts
>> > get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.
>> >
>> > For example:
>> >
>> > If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
>> > you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".
>> >
>> It's a true statement
>>
>> > If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
>> > "cloth-eared idiot".
>> >
>> Another true statement, the only thing Tubes could do is sound as good as SS
>> or worse, it is impossible for them to be better.
>>
>> > If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
>> > hearing damage at birth".
>> >
>> Yet another true statment.
>>
>> > Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV,
>> > or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).
>> >
>> And the proof that thin is not so is where?
>>
>> > Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.
>>
>> Only becuase the brigae he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
>> bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.
>>
>Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?

Oh, are you claiming better hearing, Jenn? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Jenn]

In article >,
Stewart Pinkerton > wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 07:37:23 GMT, Jenn >
> wrote:
>
> >In article t>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Glenn Richards" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
> >> > always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the
> >> > truth/facts
> >> > get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.
> >> >
> >> > For example:
> >> >
> >> > If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
> >> > you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".
> >> >
> >> It's a true statement
> >>
> >> > If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
> >> > "cloth-eared idiot".
> >> >
> >> Another true statement, the only thing Tubes could do is sound as good as
> >> SS
> >> or worse, it is impossible for them to be better.
> >>
> >> > If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
> >> > hearing damage at birth".
> >> >
> >> Yet another true statment.
> >>
> >> > Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed
> >> > WAV,
> >> > or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).
> >> >
> >> And the proof that thin is not so is where?
> >>
> >> > Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.
> >>
> >> Only becuase the brigae he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
> >> bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.
> >>
> >Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?
>
> Oh, are you claiming better hearing, Jenn? :-)

Wouldn't think of it! ;-)

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote ...&
: Even most electronic instruments are hard-pressed to produce
: truely CD quality sound.

nonsense opinion heavily embedded in optional copout adjectives,
noted.
or, can we have some facts on this, mrKrueger ? Like, what have you
measured, exactly - names & numbers, please :-)
(oh, and define sans ambigue: ~true CD quality sound~
handy for future reference, eh)

Rudy

[Ruud Broens]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
: In article >,
: Stewart Pinkerton > wrote:
:
: >
: > ><Real Audio Sucked> wrote:
: > >> Only because the brigade he's in, is made up of actual EE's and the people
: > >> bitching about him haven't even been to an electronics school.
: > >>
: > >Which qualifies him for judging how things sound?
: >
: > Oh, are you claiming better hearing, Jenn? :-)

carefuly dodging the question, noted.
:
: Wouldn't think of it! ;-)

the odds are rather good, though, considering age & gender :-)
Rudy

[Iain Churches]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:VFKPf.135464$0G.56970@dukeread10
>> > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Glenn Richards" > wrote
>>> in message
>
>> It simply isn't so and I have quite a few
>> albums that do sound lots better than their CD release.
>
> Bad mastering. So what?

The client always walks out of the mastering facility
with what he wants, so in his terms of reference it is
not bad mastering.

"So what" ?????
Arny yuou can't be serious
To me it's a crime to spend hrs, weeks,
months sometimes making a master recording, and then
have someone destroy it by making a clipped CD?

>
>> I also have a few albums that stand up well against most
>> CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to a level the technology is
>> capable of, but rarely delivers.
>
> Actually, the audio CD format is capable of dynamic range and low
> distortion that simply cannot be exploited with any real-world recording
> of live music or music played on non-electronic instruments. Even most
> electronic instruments are hard-pressed to produce truely CD quality
> sound.
>
Even large symphonic recordings rarely, if ever have a dynamic in excess
of 80dB so one would think that the CD would be the perfect medium.

As regards popular music (I am not implying that classical music
is not popular but speaking of a genre:-) the CD is a sometimes a
great disappointment. It is of consolation to no-one to be told
"The studio master is actually fine, but we had to make the CD
a bit louder and a bit brighter, oh and add a bit more bass too
(a polite way of saying "turn it inside out" ) because everyone
else does, and our CDs cannot be perceived to be lower in
average level, LF or HF content".

Iain.

[Keith G]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> news:VFKPf.135464$0G.56970@dukeread10
>>> > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Glenn Richards" > wrote
>>>> in message
>>
>>> It simply isn't so and I have quite a few
>>> albums that do sound lots better than their CD release.
>>
>> Bad mastering. So what?
>
> The client always walks out of the mastering facility
> with what he wants, so in his terms of reference it is
> not bad mastering.
>
> "So what" ?????
> Arny yuou can't be serious
> To me it's a crime to spend hrs, weeks,
> months sometimes making a master recording, and then
> have someone destroy it by making a clipped CD?
>
>>
>>> I also have a few albums that stand up well against most
>>> CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to a level the technology
>>> is
>>> capable of, but rarely delivers.
>>
>> Actually, the audio CD format is capable of dynamic range and low
>> distortion that simply cannot be exploited with any real-world recording
>> of live music or music played on non-electronic instruments. Even most
>> electronic instruments are hard-pressed to produce truely CD quality
>> sound.
>>
> Even large symphonic recordings rarely, if ever have a dynamic in excess
> of 80dB so one would think that the CD would be the perfect medium.
>
> As regards popular music (I am not implying that classical music
> is not popular but speaking of a genre:-) the CD is a sometimes a
> great disappointment. It is of consolation to no-one to be told
> "The studio master is actually fine, but we had to make the CD
> a bit louder and a bit brighter, oh and add a bit more bass too
> (a polite way of saying "turn it inside out" ) because everyone
> else does, and our CDs cannot be perceived to be lower in
> average level, LF or HF content".



Or put simply, a lot of CDs are a lot crapper than a few here* would like to
admit. Note that anyone extolling the 'superiority' of CDs....

<pauses for the laughter to subside>

....always points to summat like the loopy money Sheffield Labs disks to make
their point? I've had direct correspondence only *today* from one here who
has just received a copy of a 'famous album' and who has been blown away by
it, compared to the CD! (No names, no pack drill, no Pink Floyd!! ;-)


*And everywhere else it seems - is everything going to be multi-crossposted
now? (Are we going to become a Federation?)

[Andre Jute]

Iain Churches wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:VFKPf.135464$0G.56970@dukeread10
> >> > wrote in message
> >> nk.net...
> >>>
> >>> "Glenn Richards" > wrote
> >>> in message
> >
> >> It simply isn't so and I have quite a few
> >> albums that do sound lots better than their CD release.
> >
> > Bad mastering. So what?
>
> The client always walks out of the mastering facility
> with what he wants, so in his terms of reference it is
> not bad mastering.
>
> "So what" ?????
> Arny yuou can't be serious
> To me it's a crime to spend hrs, weeks,
> months sometimes making a master recording, and then
> have someone destroy it by making a clipped CD?
>
> >
> >> I also have a few albums that stand up well against most
> >> CDs. I have a few CDs that actually perform to a level the technology is
> >> capable of, but rarely delivers.
> >
> > Actually, the audio CD format is capable of dynamic range and low
> > distortion that simply cannot be exploited with any real-world recording
> > of live music or music played on non-electronic instruments. Even most
> > electronic instruments are hard-pressed to produce truely CD quality
> > sound.
> >
> Even large symphonic recordings rarely, if ever have a dynamic in excess
> of 80dB so one would think that the CD would be the perfect medium.
>
> As regards popular music (I am not implying that classical music
> is not popular but speaking of a genre:-) the CD is a sometimes a
> great disappointment. It is of consolation to no-one to be told
> "The studio master is actually fine, but we had to make the CD
> a bit louder and a bit brighter, oh and add a bit more bass too
> (a polite way of saying "turn it inside out" ) because everyone
> else does, and our CDs cannot be perceived to be lower in
> average level, LF or HF content".
>
> Iain.

My heart sinks when I am told a publisher believes himself to be
"creative". In practice it means that he creates nothing, offers only
wildly impractical "contributions", and tries to alter my work. I had
one clown about ten years ago who didn't like some of the backgrounds
in a particular chapter, so just before the book went to press, when I
wouldn't see it again, he pulled *only* the backgrounds he didn't like
out, and left the rest in that chapter. This was in a book for other
graphic designers, who notice such things, in a chapter on the value of
consistency; this idiot made me look like a hypocrite who preaches what
he doesn't practice. The equivalent would be if you cut a test disc,
and then some "creative" moron "equalized" it just before it was
pressed for sale...

Andre Jute