I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
really long, because I have to get back to my
home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
models able to sound as good as the best of the best
expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will
have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only
during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might
actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the
cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is
likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
any differences between the two amps.

SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the
money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of
you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote in
:

I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
really long, because I have to get back to my
home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
models able to sound as good as the best of the best
expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will
have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only
during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might
actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the
cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is
likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
any differences between the two amps.

SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the
money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of
you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.

Howard Ferstler


Howard,

For the most part you are correct but there are a few other factors that
come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier.

First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people who
can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it
[distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a
fraction of 1/100th of a percent." http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm

The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing
pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how
good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly
equipment. People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap.

Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why
should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years?
Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly a
lifetime?

I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar amplifiers.
They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years for
free or at least very close to free.

The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems. I
don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000 speakers.
Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or less
and they sound like it too.



r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote in
:

I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
really long, because I have to get back to my
home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
models able to sound as good as the best of the best
expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will
have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only
during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might
actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the
cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is
likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
any differences between the two amps.

SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the
money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of
you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.

Howard Ferstler

Howard,

For the most part you are correct

I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are
quite in contrast to the others on this thread.

but there are a few other factors that
come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier.

Probably. Remember, this was a fast-written post on amps in
general. My "formal" review of a high-end unit will be in an
upcoming issue of TSS (along with electrical analysis of the
unit by David Rich), and I am going out of my way with the
review to outline the rationale behind spending big bucks
for amps instead of spending much less and putting the money
saved into additional recordings.

First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people who
can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it
[distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a
fraction of 1/100th of a percent." http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm

Generally, people who do this are listening in such a way
that the musical content eludes them. I rather think that if
someone can hear differences between an exotic and expensive
amp and a more mainstream model (not a budget job, but a
good mid-priced mainstream unit) the exotic probably has
problems. If they can hear differences between models that
bench check to high standards they are probably deluded.
This assumes that they are not doing the comparing DBT
style.

The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing
pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how
good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly
equipment.

The unit I am reviewing is quite attractive, and was
engineered by one of the most notable amp designers in the
business. I must admit that having it currently installed in
my middle system (driving Dunlavy Cantatas) is an uplifting
experience. (This from Mr. Skeptic himself.) The amp sounds
like all my other amps, but it sure is fun to have it in
operation, and it has a certain romanticism about it that
cheaper amps would not have. Note that this does not mean I
would spend big money for the amp. For that kind of money I
would prefer to purchase more recordings, food, power tools
(for my almost expanded woodworking shop), and/or other
audio gear that makes a genuine difference.

People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap.

Yes. One can tell that by looking at the ads in the tweako
magazines for tube gear that looks like machine art. That
stuff must be selling to somebody or they would not bother
to print the ads.

Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why
should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years?

A buddy of mine has a Yamaha receiver that is 15 years old
and still working fine. My old Carver M500 is over 20 years
old and still sounds as good as that upscale amp I am
reviewing.

Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly a
lifetime?

Ironically, many tweakos spend big bucks for gear, love it
for a while, and then trade up when the new upgraded version
appears. Either that, or they change brands and go through
the same cycle all over again. These guys are equipment
junkies, not music enthusiasts. They do not compare with
precision, because they are into the hobby for factors
involving mysticism.

I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar amplifiers.

Well, the published review will cut those guys some slack,
provided they can easily afford the amps. However, if they
have to scrimp and dig for the money they are jerks. Sorry,
but that is how I feel.

They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years for
free or at least very close to free.

For free? Those guys must have some pretty good connections
to get upscale amps for free or close to it. They must be
product reviewers for tweako magazines.

The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems. I
don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000 speakers.

Admittedly, I am in agreement with you. However, I see no
problem with having a $600 receiver driving, say, $5000
speakers. Better yet, instead of a $5000 pair lets have a
$5000 6.1 speaker package and get us some surround sound.

Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or less
and they sound like it too.

Actually, I have reviewed some speakers in that price
category that do very well, indeed, at least if they are
coupled with a good subwoofer. I would probably want to have
a receiver a bit more upscale than that $300 job, however.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

Howard,

For the most part you are correct

I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are
quite in contrast to the others on this thread.


I never knew that robots and clowns like to play together.

Howard Ferstler wrote in
:

"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote in
:

I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
really long, because I have to get back to my
home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
models able to sound as good as the best of the best
expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
may be able to justify the cash outlay. I mean, they will
have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening. Only
during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
differences be notice. Yep, the big-spending crazies might
actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
other hand, the neighbor down the block who purchased the
cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
performance. Yep, he can be completely happy, and it is
likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
any differences between the two amps.

SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
feel like idiots. (At least if they are thinking that the
money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
more solidly built unit.) I mean, they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
having spent big bucks on amps. It must be killing some of
you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.

Howard Ferstler

Howard,

For the most part you are correct

I appreciate the complement and support. Your comments are
quite in contrast to the others on this thread.

but there are a few other factors that
come into play when people purchase a high priced amplifier.

Probably. Remember, this was a fast-written post on amps in
general. My "formal" review of a high-end unit will be in an
upcoming issue of TSS (along with electrical analysis of the
unit by David Rich), and I am going out of my way with the
review to outline the rationale behind spending big bucks
for amps instead of spending much less and putting the money
saved into additional recordings.

First is the relative performance of the amp. There are a few people
who can hear low levels of distortion. "Ewing Nunn... could hear it
[distortion] until we improved the system to where that was down to a
fraction of 1/100th of a percent."
http://www.roger-russell.com/mcgg1.htm

Generally, people who do this are listening in such a way
that the musical content eludes them. I rather think that if
someone can hear differences between an exotic and expensive
amp and a more mainstream model (not a budget job, but a
good mid-priced mainstream unit) the exotic probably has
problems. If they can hear differences between models that
bench check to high standards they are probably deluded.
This assumes that they are not doing the comparing DBT
style.

The other factor is aesthetics. I have had some wonderfully performing
pieces that really looked bad for a variety of reasons. No matter how
good a given piece of equipment performs, people will not buy ugly
equipment.

The unit I am reviewing is quite attractive, and was
engineered by one of the most notable amp designers in the
business. I must admit that having it currently installed in
my middle system (driving Dunlavy Cantatas) is an uplifting
experience. (This from Mr. Skeptic himself.) The amp sounds
like all my other amps, but it sure is fun to have it in
operation, and it has a certain romanticism about it that
cheaper amps would not have. Note that this does not mean I
would spend big money for the amp. For that kind of money I
would prefer to purchase more recordings, food, power tools
(for my almost expanded woodworking shop), and/or other
audio gear that makes a genuine difference.

People will, for the most part, buy attractive looking crap.

Yes. One can tell that by looking at the ads in the tweako
magazines for tube gear that looks like machine art. That
stuff must be selling to somebody or they would not bother
to print the ads.

Other factors are pride of ownership, resale value and longevity. Why
should I buy a piece of gear that is nearly junk in 7 or 8 years?

A buddy of mine has a Yamaha receiver that is 15 years old
and still working fine. My old Carver M500 is over 20 years
old and still sounds as good as that upscale amp I am
reviewing.

Wouldn't it make more sense to purchase something that will last nearly
a lifetime?

Ironically, many tweakos spend big bucks for gear, love it
for a while, and then trade up when the new upgraded version
appears. Either that, or they change brands and go through
the same cycle all over again. These guys are equipment
junkies, not music enthusiasts. They do not compare with
precision, because they are into the hobby for factors
involving mysticism.

I wouldn't be so quick to slam the purchasers of high dollar
amplifiers.

Well, the published review will cut those guys some slack,
provided they can easily afford the amps. However, if they
have to scrimp and dig for the money they are jerks. Sorry,
but that is how I feel.

They may be the ones that end up using that equipment for many years
for free or at least very close to free.

For free? Those guys must have some pretty good connections
to get upscale amps for free or close to it. They must be
product reviewers for tweako magazines.

The only other negative to the whole situation is the speaker systems.
I don't know anyone that has a $300.00 receiver driving $15,000
speakers.

Admittedly, I am in agreement with you. However, I see no
problem with having a $600 receiver driving, say, $5000
speakers. Better yet, instead of a $5000 pair lets have a
$5000 6.1 speaker package and get us some surround sound.

Usually if the receiver is $300.00 the speakers are worth the same or
less and they sound like it too.

Actually, I have reviewed some speakers in that price
category that do very well, indeed, at least if they are
coupled with a good subwoofer. I would probably want to have
a receiver a bit more upscale than that $300 job, however.

Howard Ferstler


Howard,

All of the speakers I have listened to that are in the $300 to $600 dollar
range certainly sound good considering their cost, but they certainly
don't sound like $10,000 speakers either. The problem with cheaper
speakers that they are cheap. You prety much get what you pay for. You
can add subs but they will still fall flat when asked to really perform at
lifelike (live) levels.

Even at the $600.00 receiver price level, I am not sure how many people
would have $5k speakers to go along with them. I would expect the number
of systems configured similarly to be quite small.

I you really want to see some interesting numbers, look at how much people
generally spend on the audio to go along with their new plasma
televisions. It is quite amazing. More often than not they spend $10,000
plus on the picture and then get the cheapest thing possible for the
audio.

Personally I see no problem with driving $10,000+ speakers with a $500.00
amp. I do have to ask the question of what will happen to the speakers
when or if the amp fails. I consider it poor value if the amp can wipe
out or seriously damage a significant investment in speakers.

r




--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Rich.Andrews" wrote:

Howard,

All of the speakers I have listened to that are in the $300 to $600 dollar
range certainly sound good considering their cost, but they certainly
don't sound like $10,000 speakers either.

Actually, a good pair of modestly priced satellites, when
combined with a really good subwoofer, should be able to
give even a very upscale pair of super speakers a serious
run for the sonic-accuracy money. I have reviewed several
systems of this type and was quite impressed. Of course,
when comparing such combinations it is a good idea to quite
literally put blindfolds on the participants so that they
will not be swayed by the super-duper cabinets, etc.

The problem with cheaper
speakers that they are cheap. You prety much get what you pay for.

Sometimes. Actually, some of those upscale jobs have pretty
cheap components inside, too. Indeed, most list for many,
many times what the internals cost.

You
can add subs but they will still fall flat when asked to really perform at
lifelike (live) levels.

Actually, many floor-standing super speakers will have but
three drivers inside: a woofer, a midrange, and a tweeter. A
satellite pair will also have a midrange and a tweeter, and
with a subwoofer added you will often get bass capabilities
that eclipse what you get with a pair of standard woofers in
an upscale speaker system. There is really no reason why a
three-piece package of that type should be inferior to a
pair of big, standard speakers when it comes to lifelike
levels.

Of course, if you are talking about super systems that have
LOTS of drivers (I have systems like that, myself, in my
main installation) then of course you can achieve very high
levels. However, I have found that in most rooms even fairly
small satellites (when backed up by a good sub) can get
pretty loud, and do so quite cleanly. I have also heard some
pretty upscale "big-system" models that ran into problems at
higher levels, due to the nature of the crossover slopes.
Actually, the crossover order will have a LOT to do with the
power handling abilities of any system, be it a big
floor-standing job or a sub-sat arrangement.

I you really want to see some interesting numbers, look at how much people
generally spend on the audio to go along with their new plasma
televisions. It is quite amazing. More often than not they spend $10,000
plus on the picture and then get the cheapest thing possible for the
audio.

Agreed. You can go into Best Buy and find sets that cost
nearly that much (well, at least six grand), and yet if you
go into their audio sections you will mostly find low-level
hardware, particularly the speaker hardware.

Personally I see no problem with driving $10,000+ speakers with a $500.00
amp. I do have to ask the question of what will happen to the speakers
when or if the amp fails. I consider it poor value if the amp can wipe
out or seriously damage a significant investment in speakers.

True. My main systems have built-in bistable resistors with
each section (tweeters, midranges, woofers) that limit
current if an amp decides to go off the deep end.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Actually, a good pair of modestly priced satellites, when
combined with a really good subwoofer, should be able to
give even a very upscale pair of super speakers a serious
run for the sonic-accuracy money.

Yes... using pink noise and careful "level matching" they'd even sound
the same! We the borg use pink noise for music, you will noud, duh.

Howard delivers a Sunday Vermin on amplifier sound:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with my night soil that I
decided to post it again as a brand-new comment. It is not
really long, because I have to get back to my
home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

Read "replace toilet tank flush valve and replace laser cartridge".

FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound
Howard, you are most definitely is WRONG.

Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong,
Good assumption.
[snip]

SECOND POINT. However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
Howard attempts to wrap his doggie-turds of wisdom in Greek syllogism.
those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
feel like idiots.
Howard, the absence of frontal cortex in your reptilian brain causes a
major lapse in logic. They can feel any way they like.

(At least if they are thinking that the
money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
more solidly built unit.) I mean,

Howard, you're proud of sentences that begin, "I mean,"?
Who are you trying to emulate? 8th grade english students, grappling with
verbs for the first time?

they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

Some of the brands you mention above have distinctly different sounds,
Howard.

And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

Howard, the common experience of group regulars is ownership of cheaper
gear, discarded when we experienced the ecstasy of really good sound.

As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
having spent big bucks on amps.

Wrong, Howard. We started cheap and worked up. But we wouldn't want any
neophyte lead down your soiled path, would we?

It must be killing some of
you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.

Not at all, Howard. Here's a little syllogism for you: It's not killing us
because we're not thinking it.

Abraham Lincoln

Howard Ferstler wrote:

I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it

Why?


FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
view being that "amps are pretty much amps,"

If? .. There are HUGE, audible differences even between the budget
models you list below.

spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
improvement in sound reproduction

That happens after about 5.000 (between 5000 and 25000) euros, IMO..


that probably would go
unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening.

Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to that
"pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ...

Only
during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
differences be notice.

"differences be notice?"

Yep, the big-spending crazies might
actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Could this be your trouble? Perhaps _you_ dont hear well, and _that's_
why you think ...


Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong,


You see, there you have it, even "assumptions are _not_ pretty much
assumptions" ..

I mean, they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

I have a densen amp nowadays, I upgraded from an onkyo integra model.
The onkyo was a pretty good amp, almost a budget high-end thingy. It had
almost no "soundstage" to speak of but pretty much everything else was
there. But after about 5 years of listening the analog source selector
screwed up (perhaps becuase it was never really used) and just touching
it would make the left or right channel come on and off again. Now this
big buck(?) amp (1500) I got has a *lifetime* warranty against such
stuff. Eheh.



And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street,


Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own
CD's on my system? One of the BEST friend comment I got was this "I am
listening to my stereos, you are listening to music" ... Hehehe.

It must be killing some of
you to think

It must be killing you to think that you _can't_ hear the difference. Go
to some doctor, nurse, whatever, have your ears checked. Buy some Q
tips, clean'em, etc.

Happy trolling.

Fella wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it

Why?


FIRST POINT. You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
view being that "amps are pretty much amps,"

If? .. There are HUGE, audible differences even between the budget
models you list below.

You obviously have very good ears. You DID do your comparing
decently level matched, didn't you? If you still heard
differences then you should have adopted a blind or DBT
protocol, just to make sure.

spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
improvement in sound reproduction

That happens after about 5.000 (between 5000 and 25000) euros, IMO..

that probably would go
unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening.

Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to that
"pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ...

I mainly listen to music, except when doing some (but
certainly not all) of my product testing work. It is you
guys who purchase upscale gear and then listen to IT,
instead of the music.

Only
during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
differences be notice.

"differences be notice?"

OK, so I cannot type perfectly. However, you claim to be
able to hear differences, and yet I seriously doubt you on
this. I think you are fantasizing, and possibly you have
purchased an expensive amp and are now looking for ways to
justify your cash expenditure. In other words, you are busy
rationalizing what you did and see me as the party pooper
who is wrecking your fun.

Yep, the big-spending crazies might
actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Could this be your trouble? Perhaps _you_ dont hear well, and _that's_
why you think ...

Well, at least I bothered to compare level matched. Now, I
do not begrudge you really sharp-eared guys maybe hearing
differences. However, for me (and this is all I have ever
said) the bottom line is what I hear and not what you hear.
However, if you are going to give us opinions about what YOU
hear I at least would like to have you do your comparing
carefully. My guess is that you listen to amps not level
matched and not with any kind of blind protocol. Because of
this, speculation runs the show.

Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong,

You see, there you have it, even "assumptions are _not_ pretty much
assumptions" ..

I mean, they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

I have a densen amp nowadays, I upgraded from an onkyo integra model.
The onkyo was a pretty good amp, almost a budget high-end thingy. It had
almost no "soundstage" to speak of but pretty much everything else was
there.

Your comments about soundstaging as it applies to amplifier
sound tells me that you are deluded.

And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street,

Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own
CD's on my system?

He knows that it cost big bucks, and his built-in attitude
toward big bucks tells him that it MUST sound better. Like
you, he is deluded. Incidentally, a good listening room can
make even a budget-grade system sound pretty good, and so
what he may be mainly impressed by is a superior room. The
supposedly superior hardware in that room may be having no
impact at all.

It must be killing some of
you to think

It must be killing you to think that you _can't_ hear the difference.

Not really. And my big advantage over you is that I do not
have to rationalize spending big bucks for an amplifier.

Go
to some doctor, nurse, whatever, have your ears checked. Buy some Q
tips, clean'em, etc.

In a one issue of The Sensible Sound I reviewed an
interesting hearing check CD put out by an outfit in Canada.
Yep, my hearing is not perfect, but at least I am quite sure
of just how good it happens to be.

On the other hand, I would guess that you have never had a
hearing acuity check that went clear out to 20 kHz or
evaluated your hearing in the low-bass range. For guys like
you, a hearing acuity evaluation involves simply listening
to favored components and congratulating yourselves that you
can hear all those mysterious attributes.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Fella wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:


....snip... Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to
that
"pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ...

I mainly listen to music, except when doing some (but
certainly not all) of my product testing work. It is you
guys who purchase upscale gear and then listen to IT,
instead of the music.

One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is that you DON'T have
to listen for extended periods to grab a good feel for the tonal balance and
spatial rendition qualities of a given system.

Howard is exactly right that the high-end trade is uniquely tied to the
up-grade phenomenon.There aren't that many people who are disadvantaged by
high-end audio ... they screw the same people over and over.

Nousaine wrote:


One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is that you DON'T have
to listen for extended periods to grab a good feel for the tonal balance and
spatial rendition qualities of a given system.

Ok, happy listening then.

I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge
audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat
b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes*
music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40
minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep.

Ok, and you know what you know, yes yes, this pink noise of yours sounds
the same, a sony walkman cd player connected through the headphones jack
to a yamaha receiver sounds the SAME, yup, OK, how nice. Enjoy!

Fella said:

I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge
audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat
b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes*
music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40
minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep.

This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

From: (Nousaine)
Date: 10/18/2004 8:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Fella wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:


...snip... Music oriented listening? So you actually sit down and listen to
that
"pink noise" of yours for hours on end? ...

I mainly listen to music, except when doing some (but
certainly not all) of my product testing work. It is you
guys who purchase upscale gear and then listen to IT,
instead of the music.

One of the beauties about pink and other noise signals is that you DON'T have
to listen for extended periods to grab a good feel for the tonal balance and
spatial rendition qualities of a given system.

Lord knows we don't want to have to listen to music for extended periods of
time.



Howard is exactly right that the high-end trade is uniquely tied to the
up-grade phenomenon.There aren't that many people who are disadvantaged by
high-end audio ... they screw the same people over and over.

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own
CD's on my system?


He knows that it cost big bucks,

Actually his onkyo integra surround amp costs 4 times as much as the
densen. And no, you do not need lab rat blind testing on "pink noise"
level matching to hear the difference between them. It hit's you almost
instantly when music starts to eminate from the densen.

Anyways.. Fester on, ferstler.

I think at this point I would rather agree to disagree with you as to
who is "deluded". Is it you, who carries the delusion that millions of
people around the world are deluded, or the rest of us, humanity?

Fella wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

Oh yeah? Then why is it that his jaw falls when he hears some of his own
CD's on my system?

He knows that it cost big bucks,

Actually his onkyo integra surround amp costs 4 times as much as the
densen. And no, you do not need lab rat blind testing on "pink noise"
level matching to hear the difference between them. It hit's you almost
instantly when music starts to eminate from the densen.

My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.
Of course, there could be something wrong with both. Or, as
I noted before, room acoustics simply are so dominant that
your system simply sounds better for reasons that have
nothing to do with amplifiers.

In any case, if they do not sound alike on an absolute scale
one is either out of whack or was poorly designed. Most amps
these days have topologies similar to the original,
Bongiorno designed Marantz 15, by the way. They all work
pretty much the same. Those that truly do sound different
from a design approach are probably junk.

Hmmm, I mentioned it elsewhere, but I might as well mention
it again right he

The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
also contributed to is FINALLY in print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is in there, of course.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

And, no, the discussion of amplifiers it contains makes no
mention of decently built amps sounding different.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:



My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.

Howard you *must* look like that "oukaay" teacher in southpark, say it,
say that you look like him. Say it.

Howard Ferstler said:

My guess is that there is something wrong with the Densen.
Of course, there could be something wrong with both. Or, as
I noted before, room acoustics simply are so dominant that
your system simply sounds better for reasons that have
nothing to do with amplifiers.

In any case, if they do not sound alike on an absolute scale
one is either out of whack or was poorly designed. Most amps
these days have topologies similar to the original,
Bongiorno designed Marantz 15, by the way. They all work
pretty much the same. Those that truly do sound different
from a design approach are probably junk.

Howard,

Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point of view?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 10/11/2004 9:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I posted this elsewhere in somewhat different form as a
response to another post, but I was so happy with it that I
decided to post it again as a brand-new comment.

You were happy with this? I cannot imagine anyone who fancies themself a writer
being happy with this mess.

It is not
really long,

actually it is very long considering how small the content is.

because I have to get back to my
home-improvment and shop-expansion work.

I hope you do that sort of thing better than you write.



FIRST POINT.

You are off to a bad start. Why did you use all caps? Why did you start with an
incomplete sentence? That's just bad writing.

You know, if I am WRONG about amp sound (my
view being that "amps are pretty much amps," with good cheap
models able to sound as good as the best of the best
expensive jobs) then those who have spent big bucks on amps
may be able to justify the cash outlay.

This sentence is nothing short of a car wreck. You really like what you wrote?
Unfortunately your writing is so bad that it makes the meaning of the actual
content unclear. "amps are pretty much amps." What does that mean? Speakers are
pretty much speakers. Anything is pretty much what it is. Why do you use a
vague qualifer? "pretty much" can mean very differnt things to different
people. State your belief clearly and concisely.

I mean,

You have now started two sentences with "I mean." That's just ****ty writing.
You think this is good?

they will
have spent a LOT of money to get a very, very slight
improvement in sound reproduction that probably would go
unnoticed during typical, music-oriented listening.

Unproven assertion. Your content is rejected as OSAF.

Only
during the most rigorous AB comparison could such
differences be notice.

Anothe OSAF. Not to mention more ****ty writing.

Yep, the big-spending crazies might
actually be able to crow about this, provided they have the
hearing acuity of a healthy 18 year old.

Now you are just reverting to silly name calling. That is rather pathetic
content. Your assertion is yet another OSAF. You have offered nothing to
support your position so far.Any arguments based on unsupported assertions are
worthless. You have nowhere to go from here.



Continuing for the moment to assume that I am wrong, on the
other hand,

How could anyone who thinks they are a writer allow this sentence get into
public with their name attached to it?

the neighbor down the block who purchased the
cheaper amp will still not have to feel bad, because for a
fraction of the cash outlay they will get 99.9% of the
performance.

Your writing is simply panfully bad. Your content is meaningless. You are now
inventing neighbors and then talking about their feelings. Do you know how
silly it is to discuss the feelings of make believe people?

Yep, he can be completely happy,
Who can be completely happy? Oh yeah, the make believe person.

and it is
likely that his big-spending buddy would not be able to hear
any differences between the two amps.

What is the point of speculating about the hearing acuities of make believe
people? You offer some bizarre hand waving but your argument has no meaningful
content. no verifiable premisesand no logical arguments, nothing of merit.



SECOND POINT.

second crappy begining to a paragraph. see above for details.

However, if I am CORRECT about amp sound then
those who have spent big bucks on amps will just have to
feel like idiots.

A silly assertion that is also vague. Why would said audiophiles *have* to feel
like idiots if you are right? Is it a law? Is it a matter of physics? What will
cause this feeling you assert with absolute certainty? Now lets look at your
failed logic. The fact is that many such real world audiophiles do not feel
like idiots. Does that mean you are wrong about amp sound or does it mean your
assertion that they will have to feel like idiots if you are right is a bogus
assertion?

(At least if they are thinking that the
money they spent gained them better sound and not just a
more solidly built unit.)

This qualification doesn't help your assertion. It is a well known fact that
many audiophiles do think this and do not feel like idiots as you predict. You
are simply wrong.

I mean,

Third time you start with this.

they will be not getting
any better sound-quality performance than the guy down the
block who purchased a Pioneer, Yamaha, Onkyo, Denon, etc.
receiver.

OSAF. You have yet to support a single assertion with logical argument built on
a verifiable premise



And that person who purchased the cheaper gear will now be
able to feel better than ever, because not only did he save
big bucks on his amp purchase and get two-channel sound as
good as his big-spending neighbor down the street, but he
will also get a tuner and surround sound thrown in for free.

More speculation on the feelings of make believe people. This is not a valid
argument for your beliefs. It is just bad story telling.



As far as I am concerned, most of the freaking out here that
happened when I mentioned that I think cheap amps can sound
as good as expensive ones is the result of many of you
having spent big bucks on amps.

It's hard to decipher this mangled sentence. But it seems you think your
opinion has caused people to freak out. Proof? Nope just more bad story
telling.

It must be killing some of
you to think that your pride and joy would sound the same as
a mainstream receiver in an AB comparison.

Silly speculation.

There, you have your rebuttal point by point. over all your writing sucks and
your content is totally speculative. You offer no verifiable premises and make
no logical arguments. You basically invent emotional responses of make believe
people to your views on audio. Kind of silly dont you think?

Howard Ferstler

S888Wheel wrote:

There, you have your rebuttal point by point. over all your writing sucks and
your content is totally speculative. You offer no verifiable premises and make
no logical arguments. You basically invent emotional responses of make believe
people to your views on audio. Kind of silly dont you think?

My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
least I get my written material into print.

PS: You are a jerk.

Howard Ferstler

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

(gibberish), but at
least I (gibberish).

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 10/18/2004 6:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

There, you have your rebuttal point by point. over all your writing sucks
and
your content is totally speculative. You offer no verifiable premises and
make
no logical arguments. You basically invent emotional responses of make
believe
people to your views on audio. Kind of silly dont you think?

My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards,

No, your writing sucks by any reasonable standards of writing.

but at
least I get my written material into print.

So do many other hacks, so what?


PS: You are a jerk.

Is this your rebuttal to my rebuttal? I take it as a concession to all my
points. Thank you.

P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you are
published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke.

Howard Ferstler

Who's that?

S888Wheel wrote:

P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you are
published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke.

Hey, Moron,

Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

That's five books for me (admitting that number five has me
as an editor/contributor and not sole author) and zero for
you, pinhead.

Howard Ferstler

From: Howard Ferstler
Date: 10/20/2004 6:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:

P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you
are
published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke.

Hey, Moron,

Hey, moron. That is the correct way to write it. Idiot.



Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
print.

How long was it delayed after the publishers were alerted to your plagiarism?



I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday.

Well, you can build a fire in your living room and do a cerimonial dance.

I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"

A step above getting your name in the phone book. Congradulations.


which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition.

I bet nothing got by you.

I also wrote a few new ones,

Who wrote them?


and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs,

No autobiography obviously.

plus some company histories.

Paraphrased from their promotional copy no doubt.

However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did.

No doubt. They probably are in the habbit of writing original material. That is
a lot more work.


Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

And you still refer to it as your book. Pathetic.We can surmise that at least
10% of it sucks.



Although many audio notables are in there,

That would preclude you.

it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.

Of course not. I am not involved in audio as a proffessional. What is your
excuse?



The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

IOW a low volume seller.



That's five books for me (admitting that number five has me
as an editor/contributor and not sole author) and zero for
you, pinhead.


5 POS to 0. You lose, again.

Howard Ferstler said:

Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
print.

Howard,

Did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" into your point of view?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Howard said:

S888Wheel wrote:

P.S. You are a hack as well as a plagiarist and a fraud. But at least you
are
published. But then so is Corey Greenberg. Haw Haw Haw. Get a life Slycke.

Hey, Moron,

Would you believe that The Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound
that I helped to edit and also contributed to is now in
print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is NOT in there, needless to say.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item.

Hmmm. Isn't repeated spamming of a Usenet newsgroup like this grounds for
getting kicked off one's ISP, or something similar?

Boon

Howard Ferstler said:

My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
least I get my written material into print.

So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few.
Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Sander deWaal wrote:

Howard Ferstler said:

My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
least I get my written material into print.

So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few.
Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg.

Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
also contributed to is now in print.

I got my two-volume, 1200+ page, "editors" free copy
yesterday. I am on the title page as the "technical editor,"
which is kind of a surprise. I did review all the technical
articles and updated quite a large number of others that had
been in the earlier edition. I also wrote a few new ones,
and of course I did all of the biographical sketches of
audio big wigs, plus some company histories. However, I
think the people at Routledge did a heck of a lot more than
I did. Perhaps 10% of the total material in the set was
written or modified by me.

Although many audio notables are in there, it is still
primarily a music-oriented publication, with scads of bios
of performers, plus a lot of recorded-music history. Your
bio sketch is in there, of course.

The two-volume set lists for $225.00, which means that it
will definitely be an academic or technical library item. I
am pretty sure that it is also available in Europe, since
Routledge is a member of the British Taylor & Francis
publishing group.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler said:

My writing may "suck" by your infantile standards, but at
least I get my written material into print.

So do John Atkinson and Steven Rochlin, just to name a few.
Oh, not to mention Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg.

Speaking of my writing, would you believe that The
Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound that I helped to edit and
also contributed to is now in print.

Your point being?
And besides, did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point
of view?

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Sander deWaal wrote:


George M. Middius said:

I know what I know: I put a bueno visto social club cd or a marty
ehrlich and the dark woods ensemble cd, for instance, in my cambridge
audio cd player (cost: 490euros) turn the volume knob of my densen beat
b 100 (cost: 1300 euros) and press play. Instantly the room *becomes*
music (souns faber concerto grand piano speakers) and after some 30-40
minutes I am relaxed, moved, involved, refreshed and ready to sleep.

This can't be tolerated. You *must* be deluded.

He may not believe in you, note.

He obviously believes his own ears.
Something I applaud, you will note.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "







You do realize, of course, that individual preferences are totally forbidden
for Ferstler and his small band of windmill-tllters, don't you? LOT'S !






Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

You do realize, of course, that individual preferences are totally forbidden
for Ferstler and his small band of windmill-tllters, don't you? LOT'S !

Prefer what you want. However, know that rational people
will possibly be amused by your folly, and may also want to
keep your disease from spreading to others.

Howard "helped to publish an encyclopedia" Ferstler

Howard Ferstler said:

Howard "helped to publish an encyclopedia" Ferstler

I "helped saving the world". No big deal.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:

Sander, while I appreciate your efforts to expose this charlatan, it's sort
of
like asking Bush to name 3 mistakes he's made during his presidency. (This
actually happened during the recent debates - and quite predictably, Bush
failed to give any relevant answer).

Well, obviously, he *couldn't* answer that question.
Others made the mistakes in his name :-)

But when asked, said "they were just following orders".

I don't think Bush has published any books either. Therefore, he must be a
moron!


--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "




Bruce J. Richman

From: The Devil s
Date: 10/27/2004 9:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: z

On 27 Oct 2004 16:28:09 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

Can't really call it blind when they know what is being compared and already
believe they will not hear a difference.

Can you hear the difference between a duck egg and a chicken egg
frying? Which one in particular do you prefer to lay?



You just layed another goose egg.

The Devil said:

Your point being?
And besides, did you *ever* convert one of the "loonies" to your point
of view?

He converted me into a cucumber-hater.


And you converted me into a earwig muncher.

Boon

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 10/28/2004 5:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel said:

BTW Scott, why not tell the nice folks what your occupation is, that is
if

you're not too embarrassed to admit it in public.

I'm going to "out" Scott.
He examines genitals for a living.

LOL. What's to out though? Who doesn't know my profession that is actually
genuinely curious?

It's just too funny that Arny is the only one who hasn't figured it out.

He finally did after about a year and dozens of obvious clues.


(Well, Howard doesn't know either, but he doesn't know who he's talking to
half
of the time.)

I bet Arny is used to the feeling of being the odd man out, so we shouldn't
fret.

Boon

From: George M. Middius
Date: 11/5/2004 12:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



S888Wheel said to Mr. Sack:

You are full of ****, as usual.

Are you finally willing to recognize Krooger's greatest achievement? Good
for you.


Finally? That is old news.

Paul Dormer wrote:


Bruce J. Richman" emitted :

Those guys (Richman, Wheeler, "Slick," Weil, "Middius,"
"JBorg," Phillips, Dormer, deWaal, "Margaret," etc.) have a
religious approach to audio,

That's totally dishonest. You haven't the vaguest idea of what my
'approach to audio' is. Even if you did.. I don't believe for a minute
that you would be honest about it. It wouldn't serve your cause.

Actually, Ferstler's worship of misrepresentation, character assassination,
and
lying about others and their views and/or knowledge of audio has an exremely
religious tinge to it. It reminfs me of Joan of Arc's crusade in which she
did
"what the voices told her to do". I would not be at all surprised if
Ferstler's periodic appearanes on RAO are motivated by similar personal
demons.

That sounds entirely plausible. Note, Ferstler has already admitted to
being "under the spell" of numerous irrational and/or faith
based/related beliefs, including gross falsehoods regarding the
statistical odds of fatal accidents occurring during the course of air
travel, a disturbing disposition toward hating children, and treating
common workman's tools and dehumidifiers as deities.



LOT's !!! Just more "sciiiiiiiiiiiience" from a make believe objectivist.





S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..



Bruce J. Richman

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
Note, Ferstler has already admitted to
being "under the spell" of numerous irrational and/or faith
based/related beliefs, including gross falsehoods regarding the
statistical odds of fatal accidents occurring during the course of air
travel, a disturbing disposition toward hating children, and treating
common workman's tools and dehumidifiers as deities.


Really, thay are only appliances, like toasters.

Paul Dormer wrote:


"Howard Ferstler" emitted :

PS: nobody with real technical knowledge believes about
audio gear as you do, unless you are just pimping for an
audio magazine.

You honestly have no idea what I believe about audio gear. You don't
even
know
who you're talking to half of the time.

Given that this is a nest of freako sockpuppets, I can
certainly agree. You guys all read the same to me.

Then that defines you as an idiot. That's why we gladly line up to point
it
out to you.

Boon

Actually, most of you probably really are the same. One or
two freakos pulling handfuls of sockpuppet strings and
reveling in their wit.

We are Gindi.


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..



Borganoia is a scary thing to behold. Incurable, it seems !



Bruce J. Richman