"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
k.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

Still haven't gotten the fact that ABX and other DBT protocols are
why some of the current gear sounds as good as it does?


Stop contradicting yourself.

I'm not.

If some gear sounds as good as it does, it
means
that the rest, i.e., most others does not sound quite as good as that.
I thought all alnong you have
been boringly telling us almost all ss gear sounds the same.

The stuff that is competently made and not driven to clipping.


That contravenes what you just said!

Eaxactly!! Waht you recently said contravenes your
usual repetitive ramblings.
You recently said that some gear sounds better than others.
We are assuming that all operations are normal, not clipping,
and you are comparing the actual gear.


No it is what I've bveen saying for a long time. Well built and designed
equipment has no distinct sound, it's transparent

BUT, what you recently said was that some
gear sounds better than others.




..."SOME" gear sounds as good as it does.
That means other do not,
we are talking about the comparable sound of gear, driving it to
clipping is your red herrinig.

Some gear is not competently mad and will have FR variations that are
audible.

You said 'some gear' that sounds as good as it does.
You did not say 'most' gear that sounds as good as it does.

Now you say that 'some' grar is not so good.
Well, give us some percentages as to which is which.


YOU MADE A REFERENCE TO SOME GEAR SOUNDING
AS GOOD AS IT DOES, THE MEANS THAT SOME GEAR DOES NOT.

And?


Duh, that is a qualitative hudgement on its sound.
Some is better than others. Are you saying that
the majority of gear is not as good as the best?


If it souds different it probably has a problem. Remember Moron is
talking about amps that were not involved in any double blind comparison
at all, assuming his entire post was included in George's.
I don't see his posts since I killfiled him and Eddie M. for veing
completely worthless and in Eddie's case barely coherent.

Tell us about this 'some' gear that sounds as good as it does.
And tell us about
all the ss non SET gear that does not sound quite sa good.
I will make it easy for you. No need to listen, you can talk from the
spec sheets!

I don't buy from spec sheets, I buy from proven performance and build
quality.


THEN WHAT THE HELL IS PROVEN PERFORMANCE?
YOU DON"T USE THE SPEC SHEET YOU DON"T DBT THEM
AND YOU DON"T EVEN LISTEN TO THEM!!!!!!!

Your making this up as you go along aren't you.


NO I AM GETTING ALL THIS FROM YOU.


I look at spec sheets, I listen and I get facts from people who service
the equipment.

You just said you don't use spec sheets.
Not as the sole determinig factor.

Funny! You clipped that!
And you earlier said you don't need to listen!


To something like the WAVAC, no.

Spec sheets alone aren't enough, but they are a place to start. If they
were complete enough, there would be no need for bench tests and review
measurements.


You bench test units before you purchase them??
you expect consumers to do that??


I expect people who want the best qualitiy to do whatever is possible for
them to insure they get it.

AND BUILD QUALITY????
DO YOU DISSASSEMBLE THEM ON THE SHOWROOM
FLOOR, TO SEE WHAT"S INSIDE?
DO THE SALESMEN LET YOU DO THAT??

MY GOD MAKE SOME SENSE

Pay attention and you might get a clue.


I have been paying close attention to
your gross inconsistencies!

You don't use spec sheets
you use spec sheets.
See above.

You listen to the equipemnt
You don't listen to the equipment

See above.

You use SBT's
You don't do DBT's
If a piece of equipment measures flat enough in real world measurements, not
he ones from the spec sheet, there is no reason to do a DBT. It would be
sonically transparent, which is what I want from my equipment. Other people
are free to use whatever criteria they choose.

You use review measurements.
I use them as part of a preliminary process. When done properly there is
useful information that helps one make a choice. It is not the sole factor.

You lambast magazines that publish review measurements
Not for the measurements.

I don't have a problem with magazines that do measurements. I have a
problem with magazines that do measurements but their reviewers can't seem
to hear the obvious flaws that equipment like the WAVAC obviously have. I
criticize them for having recomendations for things that are snake oil or
when they do an opinion piece on something like Shakti Stones that are
obviously snake oil, they never bother to take any measurements to see if
there is any reason for them to be praised in the first place.