(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...
Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...
Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I don't think it's trivial at all.
It does, however, tend to be canonical, which means the devil is in the
details, rather than a new overarching concept which probably does not
exist.

It might be interesting to enumerate the design concepts for solid state
amplifiers which have occurred. I would guess the number to be less than
twenty, in two groups:
1. Device physics
2. Circuit topology

From the examples I've seen, written about primarily in Stereophile --
though the Acoustat was covered in "Audio", it would seem that the result is
limited more by the design budget than anything else. The more components,
as in active constant current sources, higher quality parts, stiffer
supplies, etc., one can throw at it, the better the result. The end game
example of this is that Australian amp (name, please?) that has far lower
levels of distortion than anything else.

That amplifier is an important example, because it tends to negate the worth
of the "boutique designs" that emphasize some particular parameter at the
expense of others. That is another area that I've never found real happiness
with, in comparison to amplifiers engineered for general goodness.

Oddly, although amplifier design has become mature, it does not appear to me
that specification and testing has. The scientist in me says it all has to
reduce to numbers, yet it does not, which means that the numbers are
obtained by test procedures that fail to characterize amplifier behavior.

Someone ought to work on this.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...

Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial."

One of the better online discussions of audio power amp design is posted at
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/dipa/dipa.htm . Not trivial, but also
no longer any kind of big secret for people who do their homework.

There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as
a voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

However, for $5 or $10 you can buy one-up, a chip that delivers very usable
amounts of power with very little or no audible distortion and just a few
added parts. However, turning this chip into a competitive product is still
a goodly amount of work.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

Any project that involves designing and/or building and selling a
competitive product is challenging. Even the experts fail at it, every once
in a while.

In article ,
John Atkinson wrote:
(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...
Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise

Non-trivial!


Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)


Indeed, so.


Joe

In article ,
Robert Morein wrote:

supplies, etc., one can throw at it, the better the result. The end game
example of this is that Australian amp (name, please?) that has far lower
levels of distortion than anything else.

Lower levels of distortion is not
the end game.
Stability into infinitely varying loads,
is.

Oddly, although amplifier design has become mature, it does not appear to me
that specification and testing has. The scientist in me says it all has to
reduce to numbers, yet it does not, which means that the numbers are
obtained by test procedures that fail to characterize amplifier behavior.

Someone ought to work on this.


Audio amplifier design is fascinating, and it's
what drew me to rao at first. Early discussions on
Class A vs A/AB design, and 300B tube designs
were a great education for me.

Of course, then, those with knowledge left, leaving
the wreckage you see.

It's great to see interest in improving audio
design.


Joe

In article ,
(John Atkinson) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...
Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

Sure, take my words out of context.

You left out the previous part that qualifies them:

"Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
telecom."

"Joe Duffy" wrote in message


Of course, then, those with knowledge left, leaving
the wreckage you see.

Not everybody with knowledge left.

It's great to see interest in improving audio
design.

The most significant gains are needed elsewhere. Amp technology isn't
trivial, but it is pretty well cut-and-dried. There's not much left to do
but to make them smaller/cheaper/lighter/more efficient.

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

The most significant gains are needed elsewhere. Amp technology isn't


I agree that speakers yield the most improvement,
however amplifiers are more interesting.


Joe

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.

If science is to be believed, there can be no competitor to this company's
product.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.

If science is to be believed, there can be no competitor to this
company's product.

If science is to believed, Halcro levels of technical perfection are an
interesting technical exercise and little else.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

Oddly, although amplifier design has become mature, it does not appear to
me
that specification and testing has. The scientist in me says it all has to
reduce to numbers, yet it does not...

Actually it does, but we've simply failed to create devices that accurately
measure the attributes we (audiophiles) are interested in.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.

If science is to be believed, there can be no competitor to this
company's product.

If science is to believed, Halcro levels of technical perfection are an
interesting technical exercise and little else.

I distinguish between soft science, which encompasses psychology,
perception, and certain aspects of biology, and hard science, such as
physics and molecular biology.

Because soft science relies so much on observation, without any overarching
theory to back it up, it is prone to error and reversal. For example, for a
hundred years, it was believed that neuronal replacement did not occur in
the adult mammalian brain. Within the past three years, this has become
known to be completely false. And the ear is an extension of the nervous
system.

Your statement above may be correct, or it may not, but there is no good
science to back it up. All there is are isolated studies, flawed or not,
which may be used to incorrectly extrapolate the conclusion that perfection
at the level of a Halcro is irrelevant.

Bad scientist alert STANDS!!!

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.

If science is to be believed, there can be no competitor to this
company's product.

If science is to believed, Halcro levels of technical perfection are
an interesting technical exercise and little else.

I distinguish between soft science, which encompasses psychology,
perception, and certain aspects of biology, and hard science, such as
physics and molecular biology.

I think most people do. But just because there's a distinction in our minds
doesn't mean that the soft sciences are 100% bad which you later claim.
Furthermore, you hedged your bets by putting a undefined boundary line out
someplace in the science of biology. So you admit that its not clear where
this dividing line is.

Because soft science relies so much on observation, without any
overarching theory to back it up, it is prone to error and reversal.
For example, for a hundred years, it was believed that neuronal
replacement did not occur in the adult mammalian brain. Within the
past three years, this has become known to be completely false. And
the ear is an extension of the nervous system.

So what?

This paper set forth a "threshold of hearing":

H. Fletcher and W. A. Munson, "Loudness, its definition, measurement and
calculation," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 5, pp.
82--108, Oct. 1933.

I think that the last paper investigating the same property of the ears I've
seen was dated some time in early 2002. It basically confirmed the same
results.

Yet delusional golden ear audiophiles such as yourself Morein, like to
disregard the idea that the human ear has known, finite sensitivity limits
that are actually quite high by modern technical standards.

Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was found to
be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10 years ago, guys like
Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use the ear often disregards far
higher levels of sound than might be predicted by a naive reading of F-M.

Did Z-W know what they are talking about? A whole segment of the audio
industry based on "Perceptual Coding" is built on the scientific findings
they enlightened us about. The net of "Perceptual Coding" is that something
like 90% or more distortion (in the sense of loss of information) is
acceptable to the ear, if you pick the right 90% to distort.

Your statement above may be correct, or it may not, but there is no
good science to back it up.

There's tons of good science and empirical evidence that backs it up. If
you want to point to some minor point about the mammalian brain as proof
that none of the "soft sciences" are any good, that's up to you. But that
isn't exactly very good logic, is it?

All there is are isolated studies, flawed
or not, which may be used to incorrectly extrapolate the conclusion
that perfection at the level of a Halcro is irrelevant.

Consummate ignorance of the relevant science is noted.

Bad scientist alert STANDS!!!

You just indicted yourself as a bad scientist again, Morein. Thanks!

Obsess over the Halcro if you want to Morein, it's your money, your life.
Just don't try to use egregiously bad logic like this and your ignorance of
what's known about the sensitivity of the human ear to justify your
obsessions and mislead others.

"jeffc" wrote in message
m

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

Oddly, although amplifier design has become mature, it does not
appear to me that specification and testing has. The scientist in me
says it all has to reduce to numbers, yet it does not...

Actually it does, but we've simply failed to create devices that
accurately measure the attributes we (audiophiles) are interested in.

Most such attributes being non-sonic. That's a problem with the soft science
of marketing, not the hard science of measurement of audio parameters.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
[snip]

Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was found to
be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10 years ago, guys
like
Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use the ear often disregards far
higher levels of sound than might be predicted by a naive reading of F-M.

The bottom line is that you apparently have hearing acuity which is
substantially below average for a person who is interested in listening to
music. This, combined with a highly self-centric point of view, has tainted
your point of view.

It is indeed possible that the Halcro is excessively perfect. Unfortunately,
you use results like Fletcher Munson in an extrapolative way. Extrapolation
is bad science; it is a form of prediction, not a form of proof. Your lack
of comprehension of this simple fact exacerbates whatever other attitude
problems you have that infect your so-called science.

Research on perceptual encoding has been used to predict what methods work;
however, they did not prove the methods would work. "Proof" is a
mathematical concept which cannot be used to study complexes of electronics,
biology, and information theory.

You persistently think that axiomatic systems exist for human perception.
They do not. An observational science can never prove anything. Axiomatic
systems belong to mathematics. Even in physics, the one thing which is known
is that nothing is proven. Fortunately, physics is in the custody of greater
minds than yours.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
[snip]

Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was
found to be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10
years ago, guys like Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use
the ear often disregards far higher levels of sound than might be
predicted by a naive reading of F-M.

The bottom line is that you apparently have hearing acuity which is
substantially below average for a person who is interested in
listening to music.

Troll? Gratuitous personal attack? Manic defensiveness?

My hearing is irrelevant. Too many people have done the relevant listening
tests and produced results that support my claims about the Halcro.

The Halcro is overkill. Heck, even the power amp in a Pioneer receiver is
overkill. The audio CD format is overkill. As long as people spin their
wheels overkilling the easy parts of audio we'll take way to long solving
the hard parts that remain unsolved.

This, combined with a highly self-centric point
of view, has tainted your point of view.

Gee Bob why am I sure that you've never done any serious reading in the
archives of the AES or ASA?

Why am I sure that you've never given yourself a practical education in the
properties of the ear at www.pcabx.com? I think you're just afraid to find
that you've got flesh-and-blood ears like the rest of us. Chicken. Coward.
bwauk-bwauk-bwauk!

It is indeed possible that the Halcro is excessively perfect.

It's certain.

Unfortunately, you use results like Fletcher Munson in an
extrapolative way.

I do think that logical induction can lead to valid conclusions. If going
from 16/44 to 24/96 doesn't make any reliably audible difference, then some
understanding of the ear and logical induction makes me suspect that going
from 16/44 to 24/192 isn't going to do much either. Then there's all those
well-known authorities and refereed papers that agree with me.

Extrapolation is bad science; it is a form of
prediction, not a form of proof.

Then I actually made some 24/192 recordings and darn if science and logical
induction didn't strike again.

The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!

Your lack of comprehension of this
simple fact exacerbates whatever other attitude problems you have
that infect your so-called science.

Hey, let Halcro do their DBTs in accordance with ITU document BS 1116 and
publish the results. Or anybody else.

Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
for.

Research on perceptual encoding has been used to predict what methods
work; however, they did not prove the methods would work. "Proof" is a
mathematical concept which cannot be used to study complexes of
electronics, biology, and information theory.

This stuff works, Bob. That you keep your head in the sand and deny all the
evidence is not my problem.

You persistently think that axiomatic systems exist for human
perception. They do not.

Irrelevant. I've done enough DBTs of power amps to know which way the wind
blows. Tell us about your power amp DBTs conforming to ITU document BS 1116,
Bob. Let's cut to the chase Bob - you don't have any, do you?

The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!

An observational science can never prove
anything. Axiomatic systems belong to mathematics. Even in physics,
the one thing which is known is that nothing is proven. Fortunately,
physics is in the custody of greater minds than yours.

Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
for.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either directly or
by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They rather obviously think
they are really smart. They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.



Bob's IQ just went up 20 points.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

The "perfect amp" I cited is Halcro.
[snip]

Interestingly the way some people interpreted the F-M results was
found to be wildly optimistic by a number of scientists about 10
years ago, guys like Zwicker and Fastl. Bottom line, in actual use
the ear often disregards far higher levels of sound than might be
predicted by a naive reading of F-M.

The bottom line is that you apparently have hearing acuity which is
substantially below average for a person who is interested in
listening to music.

Troll? Gratuitous personal attack? Manic defensiveness?

My hearing is irrelevant. Too many people have done the relevant listening
tests and produced results that support my claims about the Halcro.

The Halcro is overkill. Heck, even the power amp in a Pioneer receiver is
overkill. The audio CD format is overkill. As long as people spin their
wheels overkilling the easy parts of audio we'll take way to long solving
the hard parts that remain unsolved.

This, combined with a highly self-centric point
of view, has tainted your point of view.

Gee Bob why am I sure that you've never done any serious reading in the
archives of the AES or ASA?

Why am I sure that you've never given yourself a practical education in
the
properties of the ear at www.pcabx.com? I think you're just afraid to find
that you've got flesh-and-blood ears like the rest of us. Chicken. Coward.
bwauk-bwauk-bwauk!

It is indeed possible that the Halcro is excessively perfect.

It's certain.

Unfortunately, you use results like Fletcher Munson in an
extrapolative way.

I do think that logical induction can lead to valid conclusions. If going
from 16/44 to 24/96 doesn't make any reliably audible difference, then
some
understanding of the ear and logical induction makes me suspect that going
from 16/44 to 24/192 isn't going to do much either. Then there's all those
well-known authorities and refereed papers that agree with me.

Extrapolation is bad science; it is a form of
prediction, not a form of proof.

Then I actually made some 24/192 recordings and darn if science and
logical
induction didn't strike again.

The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!

Your lack of comprehension of this
simple fact exacerbates whatever other attitude problems you have
that infect your so-called science.

Hey, let Halcro do their DBTs in accordance with ITU document BS 1116 and
publish the results. Or anybody else.

Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
for.

Research on perceptual encoding has been used to predict what methods
work; however, they did not prove the methods would work. "Proof" is a
mathematical concept which cannot be used to study complexes of
electronics, biology, and information theory.

This stuff works, Bob. That you keep your head in the sand and deny all
the
evidence is not my problem.

You persistently think that axiomatic systems exist for human
perception. They do not.

Irrelevant. I've done enough DBTs of power amps to know which way the wind
blows. Tell us about your power amp DBTs conforming to ITU document BS
1116,
Bob. Let's cut to the chase Bob - you don't have any, do you?

The empirical world does have some relevance to this discussion!
The acryonym does rather appropriately contain "BS".
I'm not interested in phony paper trails either. You can stamp it with
"official" all you want, but it's just a cover for:
BAD SCIENCE.

An observational science can never prove
anything. Axiomatic systems belong to mathematics. Even in physics,
the one thing which is known is that nothing is proven. Fortunately,
physics is in the custody of greater minds than yours.

Your problem Bob is that you only see the arguments against, not the facts
for.
The facts you cite are merely flawed arguments when they are used in an
extrapolative manner.


But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either directly
or
by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They rather obviously think
they are really smart. They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.

I condemn anything like that, or the mention of family tragedies.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either directly
or
by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They rather obviously think
they are really smart. They are about as smart as you calling me deaf.

I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs make a
right."
Thisis utterly childish.
While his personality could hardly be called childish, it has peculiar
chinks, of which this is one example.

The behavior Arny cites should be condemned, not imitated, by the victim or
by anyone else.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

....lots of technical comments.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
smart as you calling me deaf.

I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
make a right."

Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse in his
life.

I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame level in
this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always somebody else's fault.


BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really and
physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might increase your
tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum well-known within the Usenet
audio groups for verbal abuse.

You can spin it any way you want to Bob, since that seems to be what you
want to do.

This is utterly childish.

Yes, you are acting kinda immature, Bob. It's a story that's seriously
working on being a decade long. I deconstruct someone technically and
logically and they come on with the personal attacks.

I've tried to keep my comments on this topic as technical as I could.
However, the Middius thing to do is to try to distract the discussion into a
series of personal attacks.

While his personality could hardly be called childish, it has peculiar
chinks, of which this is one example.

Except the purported example is a creation of your own mind, Bob.

The behavior Arny cites should be condemned, not imitated, by the
victim or by anyone else.

Works for me, Bob. It's clear to me that your efforts into turning my
technical discussion of power amps into a flame thread replete with numerous
personal attacks is a positive step in this direction.

;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

...lots of technical comments.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
smart as you calling me deaf.

I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
make a right."

Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse in his
life.

I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame level in
this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always somebody else's
fault.


BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really and
physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might increase your
tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum well-known within the
Usenet
audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the trial.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

...lots of technical comments.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
smart as you calling me deaf.

I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
make a right."

Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse
in his life.

I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame
level in this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always
somebody else's fault.


BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really
and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might
increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that would take
some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

(Audio Guy) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Atkinson) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...
Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

Sure, take my words out of context.

You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
"Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
telecom."

My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes the
meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It doesn't
matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial" application,
only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I feel
that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can think of
almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
achieve that level of performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Robert Morein said:

The behavior Arny cites should be condemned, not imitated, by the victim or
by anyone else.

On the contrary, it is fully justified by Mr. ****'s own behavior.

If somebody has fantasies that are both pedophiliac and necrophiliac
(as well as involving excretory functions), you might hope he keeps it
to himself. But if that individual posts vivid descriptions of the
fantasies on a public forum such as RAO, and goes on to say "One of my
enemies made me do this," that is a factual basis for accusations of
pedophilia and other abnormalities.

The accusations *against* Krooger are substantial and based on his own
behavior. The accusations *by* Krooger are frivolous and retaliatory.

This distinction has been explained to you many times before. Try to
learn it this time.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

...lots of technical comments.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
smart as you calling me deaf.

I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two wrongs
make a right."

Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse
in his life.

I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame
level in this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always
somebody else's fault.


BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really
and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might
increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that would
take
some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

If you state that it relates to a factual event of your own life, then I
withdraw the interpretation, and my offer to depose.

If so, state it NOW.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

...lots of technical comments.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
smart as you calling me deaf.

I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two
wrongs make a right."

Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse
in his life.

I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame
level in this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always
somebody else's fault.


BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

If you state that it relates to a factual event of your own life,
then I withdraw the interpretation, and my offer to depose.

If so, state it NOW.

So stated.

In article ,
(John Atkinson) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Atkinson) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...
Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

Sure, take my words out of context.

You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
"Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
telecom."

My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes the
meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It doesn't
matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial" application,
only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I feel
that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can think of
almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
achieve that level of performance.

My point is that relative to other areas of EE, audio IS trivial. As
well as mundane and much less lucrative. I mean, come on, it just
doesn't compare to to something like designing ICs at the sub-micron
level, or optical transmission at a 10 Gbit/sec rate.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


[snip]

...lots of technical comments.

But then, great minds do not call innocent people pedophiles.

Tell that to all the people who've called me a pedophile either
directly or by implication dozens and even 100's of times. They
rather obviously think they are really smart. They are about as
smart as you calling me deaf.

I note that in the above, Arny apparently believes that "two
wrongs make a right."

Or, I apparently believe that the wise man tolerates a little abuse
in his life.

I note that Bob won't admit his culpability in raising the flame
level in this major thread. You see in Bob world it's always
somebody else's fault.


BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

If you state that it relates to a factual event of your own life,
then I withdraw the interpretation, and my offer to depose.

If so, state it NOW.

So stated.

I retract my offer to Mr. Wheeler.
Believe it or not, if you were stuck on the road, I WOULD help you out.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean really
and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that might
increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that would take
some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
hospital? Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
with people?

Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
in real life.

I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Atkinson) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Atkinson) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...
Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design
fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as
a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical
RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

Sure, take my words out of context.

You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
"Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
telecom."

My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes the
meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It doesn't
matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial"
application,
only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I feel
that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can think of
almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
achieve that level of performance.

My point is that relative to other areas of EE, audio IS trivial. As
well as mundane and much less lucrative. I mean, come on, it just
doesn't compare to to something like designing ICs at the sub-micron
level, or optical transmission at a 10 Gbit/sec rate.

The latest EE Times has an article, "40 gHz and Beyond"

40 gHz!
Of all the centuries, this is the most unlike any other.
I've been told I look about 27 years old, yet I remember futzing with 6BA6's
and other thermionic devices.
When I was a child, I took a Coke-bottle tube out of the back of the TV and
held it in my hand, much to the consternation of my baby sitter.
Then I remember staring at a 2764 under a Nikon binocular microscope, and
marveled at the tiny array.
With a 27C512, you can't see the array!
Now IC lithography is going beyond the realm of visible light, into UV and
soft X-ray.

Hell, when I was a physics grad student, we used to believe that the
two-slit diffraction experiment was explained by Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle.
My dear qmech teacher, Sigurd Larsen, showed us that all "Hidden Variables
Theories" had inherent contradictions.
Turned out VonNeumann's proof was wrong!

Next up: Spintronics, on the Road to 100 gHz Computing!

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
hospital?

Actually, a group of people something like the real-world equivalent you and
your clique, Weil.

Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
with people?

I learned that there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at the
wrong time.

Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
in real life.

Letsee, Graham accused me of murdering a family member how many times before
that phone call?

I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

Just like you Weil, to try to score points based on someone else's real (not
imaginary like yours w/r/t me) pain and suffering.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Believe it or not, if you were stuck on the road, I WOULD help you
out.

They give medals for that kind of heroism, don't they?

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
(Audio Guy) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(John Atkinson) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote on r.a.h-e in message
...
Audio is a trivial application, they learn about power supply
design and amplification, which is pretty much all there is to
audio amplifiers, in their early years and then go on to much more
interesting and challenging concepts.

I see statements like this from time to time, yet I am not so sure
that audio design is "trivial." There are not many other design fields
where an amplifier: has to provide up to 30dB of voltage gain; act as
a
voltage source into a wide and arbitrary range of load impedances
and do so in an unconditionally stable manner; have a passband noise
contribution at least 90dB down from 1W into 8 ohms, no matter what
its voltage gain and ultimate power delivery; have distortion
components under all load conditions that are below the threshold of
hearing no matter what the program material is; and do all the above
over at least three-decade, ie, a 10-octave passband.

Thoughts, gentlemen? I would suggest that designing, say, a typical RF
amplifier is, by comparison, "trivial" but, of course, I may just be
missing something :-)

Sure, take my words out of context.

You left out the previous part that qualifies them:
"Audiophiles don't realize that audio is an extremely small
part of electrical engineering and that very, very few schools even
teach courses in the subject. It isn't where the money is, nor is it
where the interest is for EE students. EEs like to make ICs or design
computers or work in motor control or design antennas or work in
telecom."

My apologies "audioguy" but I don't see how this paragraph changes the
meaning of the words you wrote about audio amplifier design. It doesn't
matter _ why_ electronic engineers feel audio is a "trivial" application,
only that they do, and that is what I was addressing. Note that I feel
that audio amplifier design is far from trivial. If you look at the
list of attributes I listed for an ideal audio amplifier, I can think of
almost none, of all the designs I have tested for Stereophile, that
achieve that level of performance.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Many words slip into a discourse through inadvertent prejudice or
association, rather than intended meaning.
I think what Audioguy meant to say is that audio amplification is regarded
as trivial not because it is, but because it is bereft of the prestige that
comes with working in a field with actively advancing fundamentals.
For example, Kalman filtering is no less important now than in the early
1960's, yet only the specialists who actually insert these very canonical
algorithms into microcontrollers pay any attention.

Examples of recent, really remarkable advances which incorporate elements
of circuit theory are
high speed serial bus transducers, such as RAMBUS or USB
flash A/D
the neodymium lightwave amplfier
Sun's capacitive chip interface
and a little bit earlier: the gyrator

By contrast, designing and building an audio amplifier is somewhat like
cutting a diamond. It has become an almost timeless skill.

But I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set of
figures of merit. I still can't look at a set of your graphs and predict how
an amp will sound. That's a disconnect.

"Audio Guy" wrote in message


My point is that relative to other areas of EE, audio IS trivial.

Well certainly, most legacy audio is very cut-and-dried. Other than making
high quality audio smaller/lighter/cheaper there isn't a lot of life left in
the old girl.

Audio could be more interesting and profitable, but so much of its real and
intangible capital has been squandered on snake oil. Audio has been largely
a derivative art for at least 20-30 years.

As well as mundane and much less lucrative.

Bingo, and one reason why I've never looked for a full-time job in audio
since I was 15. I have some friends who did with varied success, but many of
them either fell off the gravy train or are glad they are coming up on
retirement.

I mean, come on, it just
doesn't compare to to something like designing ICs at the sub-micron
level, or optical transmission at a 10 Gbit/sec rate.

There are a few ways to make the big bucks in audio and not soil oneself
with snake oil, but they are few and far between.

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
hospital? Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
with people?

Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
in real life.

I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

Krooger recently blamed me for the waves of disdain and torrents of
loathing that envelop him on RAO. No doubt he has a similar bugbear
for the other Usenet groups. And somebody else for the other sites
where they have his number.

On other, equally deluded days, he has fatuously claimed that he is
despised for his "audio opinions". And on still others, he ludicrously
boasts of having "won" debates with his betters, or "shown up" various
other posters, or "deconstructed" the statements of normal people with
that peculiarity of his illness we know as Kroo-logic.

In real life, he can't hold a job. And there are a ton of reports from
other audio enthusiasts in his neck of the woods that he is a total
prick in real life, very much like the online version and the recorded
version. Maybe Mr. **** will tell us who's to blame for all those
other people not being able to stand him.

Krooger inhabits a peculiar universe in which his own behavior has
nothing to do with how much other people like or dislike him. Instead,
people detest him because he, Krooger, believes he is smarter than
they are. Or because he holds certain opinions in a small area that is
nearly inconsequential to most people. Or because -- and this is my
favorite -- they succumb to my telepathic commands and begin hating
Krooger simply because I willed it.

It's all a great big plot. Only "God" has this kind of power. Maybe
Turdy should ponder that for a while.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


But I say to you, John, that nobody has come up with a reasonable set
of figures of merit.

Admittedly he hasn't dumbed his tech reports down enough to address the
typical nontechnical audiophile. However, these guys are generally snowed by
the subjectivist poetry and song-and-dance.

I still can't look at a set of your graphs and predict how an amp will
sound.

Confession of highly ability to make abstraction relate to the real world
noted.

John's charts and graphs could be used to sift the sonically transparent
amps from the others. For the ones that aren't transparent, a fairly
close-sounding model could be constructed from his reports. What more does
it take?

That's a disconnect.

Only for people who aren't up-to-date about science and audio and don't want
to bother to learn.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:38:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a forum
well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for the
trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
hospital?

Actually, a group of people something like the real-world equivalent you and
your clique, Weil.

Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
with people?

I learned that there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at the
wrong time.

Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
in real life.

Letsee, Graham accused me of murdering a family member how many times before
that phone call?

I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

Just like you Weil, to try to score points based on someone else's real (not
imaginary like yours w/r/t me) pain and suffering.

I was just giving you some helpful advice.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:38:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a
forum well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for
the trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
hospital?

Actually, a group of people something like the real-world equivalent
you and your clique, Weil.

Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
with people?

I learned that there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at
the wrong time.

Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
in real life.

Letsee, Graham accused me of murdering a family member how many
times before that phone call?

I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

Just like you Weil, to try to score points based on someone else's
real (not imaginary like yours w/r/t me) pain and suffering.

I was just giving you some helpful advice.

Right, and Greg Singh is a great intellect with a great sense of humor and
Middius is a woderful loving humanitarian.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:07:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:38:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:58:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

BTW Bob, ever have the living crap beaten out of you? I mean
really and physically. I mean hospital time. If not, some of that
might increase your tolerance for a little verbal abuse in a
forum well-known within the Usenet audio groups for verbal abuse.

I make note of this, in case Mr. Wheeler wishes to depose me for
the trial.

You could take my comments autobiographically, but of course that
would take some spice out of your life, wouldn't it?

Damn - you ****ed someone off enough to where they put you in the
hospital?

Actually, a group of people something like the real-world equivalent
you and your clique, Weil.

Shouldn't that tell you something about the way you interact
with people?

I learned that there is such a thing as being in the wrong place at
the wrong time.

Those of us who have heard the infamous "telephone conversation with
the devil" have realized that you are much like the way you are here
in real life.

Letsee, Graham accused me of murdering a family member how many
times before that phone call?

I'd be looking deep within and try to lighten up a little.

Just like you Weil, to try to score points based on someone else's
real (not imaginary like yours w/r/t me) pain and suffering.

I was just giving you some helpful advice.

Right, and Greg Singh is a great intellect with a great sense of humor and
Middius is a woderful loving humanitarian.

Yep, this is the very thing I'm talking about. The quicker you get the
chip off of your shoulder, the better you will be.

Robert Morein wrote:

Because soft science relies so much on observation, without any overarching
theory to back it up, it is prone to error and reversal. For example, for a
hundred years, it was believed that neuronal replacement did not occur in
the adult mammalian brain. Within the past three years, this has become
known to be completely false. And the ear is an extension of the nervous
system.

Actually, people knew this over a decade ago - by witnessing such things as
people who had half of their brain missing and seeing it re-wire itself
into the non-dead portions.

Of course, like most things in life, widespread acceptance takes about
a decade or two to happen.