I'm tired of people shilling QSC amps in this newsgroup.
These amps sound awful.
It's ironic that the ABXers would discredit themselves by choosing QSC as
their "poster amp".
If they want a poster amp, surely there are better choices. Parasound's
larger amps have been mentioned as giant killers.
But QSC? NOT.
QSC makes junky, workaday amps for sound reinforcement. Great for rockers
listening to killowatts at 200 meters. Venue amplification is an entirely
different thing from hifi, as anyone who has ever been to a concert knows.

Special amps for "special people."

My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.

"Robert Morein" said:

My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.


Real men DIY their amps :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" said:

My advice to anyone in the market for a hifi amp: DO NOT BUY QSC.


Real men DIY their amps :-)

Some would say tubes are for girlie men

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.

When jused with normal speakers at normal levels, they should be more than
adequate and sonically transparent.

" wrote in
message
link.net
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and
sold purpose, which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a
HOW organ and PA integrated system that used three of
them in "straight" mode and one other used as a rotating
speaker driver. Sounded great. As a hi-fi amp they are
probably better than some of the
**** sold thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly
deficient when used with high efficiency speakers at low
volumes. In other words, they sound just lie a Mcintosh
MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
When jused with normal speakers at normal levels, they
should be more than adequate and sonically transparent.

QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy of
sighted testing.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
:
: QSC amps are designed to be clean *
: with low impedance
: reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Rudy

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy of
sighted testing.

The sonic flaws of high power Class B solid state amplifiers operating
at very low power levels are well known. I think Walker at Quad
documented them which led to his "current dumping" work. Those Quad
solid state amps sounded pretty good for their day as solid state
went;I understand modernized ones are excellent by any standard.

But then, QSC does not market their product for domestic use, and
cannot be held liable for any fault from such use. It's the same
principle as putting a 3.8 liter Ford V6 in a homebuilt airplane. If it
quits and puts you into a mountain some night, you cannot sue Ford. And
rightly not. On the other hand you can sue Textron Lycoming, if it is
the fault of negligence, and rightly so, when an IO-540 quits.

This Halloween, I'm going to have a borrowed Leslie that has been
de-amped for playing the Disney Haunted Mansion tracks. I'm going to
drive it with an old solid state McIntosh I have which I use as a bench
amp. Should work great, even though by then Mac had totally abandoned
the pro market.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy of
sighted testing.

The sonic flaws of high power Class B solid state amplifiers operating
at very low power levels are well known. I think Walker at Quad
documented them which led to his "current dumping" work. Those Quad
solid state amps sounded pretty good for their day as solid state
went;I understand modernized ones are excellent by any standard.

True indeed. Simple biasing circuits lead to crossover distortion that is
bothersome to many ears.
Solutions: current dumping, precision biasing, Class A at low power levels,
MOSFETs.

If it doesn't bother Arny, he can save money.

Robert Morein wrote:
snip
If it doesn't bother Arny, he can save money.

It doesn't and he does.

Having inefficient speakers helps him greatly with this, of course, as
does being partially deaf in the first place.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip

QSC amps are designed to be clean with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Bret Ludwig is well known to be sucked in by the fallacy
of sighted testing.

The sonic flaws of high power Class B solid state
amplifiers operating at very low power levels are well
known.

Good thing that Class B audio amps are so rare.

I think Walker at Quad documented them which led
to his "current dumping" work. Those Quad solid state
amps sounded pretty good for their day as solid state
went;I understand modernized ones are excellent by any
standard.

Hmmm.

But then, QSC does not market their product for domestic
use,

So what?

and cannot be held liable for any fault from such
use.

What fault might that be?

It's the same principle as putting a 3.8 liter Ford
V6 in a homebuilt airplane. If it quits and puts you into
a mountain some night, you cannot sue Ford. And rightly
not. On the other hand you can sue Textron Lycoming, if
it is the fault of negligence, and rightly so, when an
IO-540 quits.

You're lost in the ozone, Bret.

I'll remember all this when my living room starts losing
altitude.

LOL!

This Halloween, I'm going to have a borrowed Leslie that
has been de-amped for playing the Disney Haunted Mansion
tracks. I'm going to drive it with an old solid state
McIntosh I have which I use as a bench amp. Should work
great, even though by then Mac had totally abandoned the
pro market.

Whatever.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


True indeed. Simple biasing circuits lead to crossover
distortion that is bothersome to many ears.

Spoken by someone who has never done a circuit analysis or
design of a biasing network in his life.


Yawn!

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
snip
If it doesn't bother Arny, he can save money.

It doesn't and he does.

Having inefficient speakers helps him greatly with this, of course, as
does being partially deaf in the first place.

In theory, it does, but the amp has other problems.
The following three amplifiers, which have radically different technology,
sound similarly muddy to me: QSC, Sunfire, and Bryston (old, I haven't heard
new.)
I find that amplifiers that sound revealing to me usually have
specifications indicating bandwidth far beyond the audible range. Since this
cannot in itself be the cause, I speculate that high amplitude transient
reproduction in the audio range is facilitated in some way by amplifiers
that have high bandwidth.

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


True indeed. Simple biasing circuits lead to crossover
distortion that is bothersome to many ears.

Spoken by someone who has never done a circuit analysis or
design of a biasing network in his life.


Yawn!

It is typical of your debating trade tactics that you would assert something
like that without knowing. You're a dirty guy.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting reference
framework they call "truth".

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term.

So what?

It's also as old as the hills.

Apparently, Arny's gang feels free
to throw in such relative terms whenever they like, in
that constantly shifting reference framework they call
"truth".

Where did I say otherwise?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting reference
framework they call "truth".

Does anyone think 1% THD is low distortion for an amp?

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:JMu6f.3539$Ix3.303@dukeread05
"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output
levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
they call "truth".

Does anyone think 1% THD is low distortion for an amp?

Not at all.

If a QSC amp is producing 1% THD the clipping indicator is
glowing brightly.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when referring to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers. But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is consistent. By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
perceptions of others. It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers. When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
"preference", or "distinguishable".. "Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.
According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made without
switching quickly between them.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not have an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged. Nevertheless, I do not challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer, are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good science,
as it has been practiced with respect to hifi. But if that is the mode of
thought that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all of your
prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate the process. "Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion and low
noise.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?

When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without
switching quickly between them.


He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged. Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer, are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing differnces and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.

as it has been practiced with respect to hifi. But if that is the mode of
thought that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all of your
prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate the process.

The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.


It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.

" wrote in message
et...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to
argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve
enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion and
low
noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories, there is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?

When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without
switching quickly between them.


He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged. Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer,
are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing differnces
and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.

as it has been practiced with respect to hifi. But if that is the mode
of
thought that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all of your
prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate the process.

The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently inaccurate.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.


It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.

Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is not
beneficial to your argument.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
et...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw
in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to
argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve
enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion and
low
noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories, there
is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?



Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.






When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard
more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?

They can remember as good sounding.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without
switching quickly between them.

Actually it implies the opposite.

He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not
have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I have
a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have some
idea of what clean sounds like?

Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer,
are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing differnces
and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.


The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
inaccurate.

You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of circuit, to
determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
measurable.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply means
it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.

It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.

Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is not
beneficial to your argument.

What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the wall
and hoping it sticks.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output
levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
they call "truth".

*Clean* as a favorable descriptor for audio gear, has been
around for at least 50 years that I can remember.

I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other
way when referring to the sound of an audio system.

Agreed.

What other meaning do you think of when talking about
the sound of an audio system?

Bor Morein? Hmmm, how to relate clean to the voices that he
hears in his head? I'll get back with you Mike... ;-)

This is about self consistency.

What would the self, be and where is the inconsistency?

I understand that you
are trying to argue that ABX boxes are the only valid way
to compare amplifiers.

That would be a big misunderstanding.

But you owe it to yourself, or
your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
By invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Given that your premise is a grotesque misunderstanding Bob,
this can only go downhill.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine
the claimed perceptions of others.

That would be another big misunderstanding.

It only weakens your own argument.


You believe that ABX boxes are the only way
to compare amplifiers.

That would remain a big misunderstanding.

When one amplifier is found to be
preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
are "preference", or "distinguishable"..

???????????????

If I found that one amp was preferable to another, I'd
probably call it *preferable*. If I wanted to be a little
systematic about the nature of my preferences, I'd probably
express them along the lines of AES standard 22.

"Clean" implies
that the listener has an internal reference of
undistorted sound.

Bob shows once again that he doesn't get stright-wire bypass
tests, just to cite one popular and effective
counter-example.

But, I believe you recently referred
to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.

Just for small differences.

According to that, a listener could not have an
internal memory of what "clean" sounds like.

That would be a another big misunderstanding.

If he could,
then he could remember what amplifiers sound like as
well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without switching quickly between them.

Trouble is, most amps used for reproducing music differ only
in small amounts.

However, if we took this discussion into the realm of MI
amps, it might get interesting.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me,

Obviously Bob, and neither does "truth"

because I do not have an absolute remembered standard of
what undistorted sound is like.

Didn't we just discuss straight wire bypass type tests?
Where were you, Bob?

I have a season
subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
time I attend, my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

Reality can do that, You should get out more, Bob.

Nevertheless, I do not challenge subjectivists when they
use the word "clean", because it is one of the symbols
they use to organize their perceptions.


But you, as an ABXer, are trying to do science.

That would be yet another big misunderstanding.

Personally, I do not
believe that it is good science, as it has been practiced
with respect to hifi.

Given all the misapprehensions of it that you have Bob...

But if that is the mode of thought
that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all
of your prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate
the process.

?????????????

"Clean" is not a scientific term, and it
should not be used in the context of attempts to
scientifically compare amplifiers.

????????????????

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
et...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to throw
in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of
when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to
argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve
enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and
never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion
and
low
noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories,
there
is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?



Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.






When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard
more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?

They can remember as good sounding.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of
what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without
switching quickly between them.

Actually it implies the opposite.

He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not
have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I
have
a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have some
idea of what clean sounds like?

Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of
the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an ABXer,
are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
differnces
and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.


The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
inaccurate.

You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of circuit,
to
determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
measurable.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply means
it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.

It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.

Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is not
beneficial to your argument.

What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the wall
and hoping it sticks.

Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.

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

" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output
levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
they call "truth".

*Clean* as a favorable descriptor for audio gear, has been
around for at least 50 years that I can remember.

Age promotes prejudice, and prejudice promotes fraud.

I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other
way when referring to the sound of an audio system.

Agreed.
That does not mean that the term has meaning.

What other meaning do you think of when talking about
the sound of an audio system?

Bor Morein? Hmmm, how to relate clean to the voices that he
hears in his head? I'll get back with you Mike... ;-)

This is about self consistency.

What would the self, be and where is the inconsistency?
The term is well known. It refers for the need of any cogent argument to be
internally self consistent. As grotesquely inflated your sense of self is,
you should recognize I am not referring to the "self" that is Arny Kreuger.

I understand that you
are trying to argue that ABX boxes are the only valid way
to compare amplifiers.

That would be a big misunderstanding.
Being coy, Arny?

But you owe it to yourself, or
your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
By invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Given that your premise is a grotesque misunderstanding Bob,
this can only go downhill.
Your position is already six feet under. I have to use a shovel to find you.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine
the claimed perceptions of others.

That would be another big misunderstanding.
Being coy, Arny?

It only weakens your own argument.


You believe that ABX boxes are the only way
to compare amplifiers.

That would remain a big misunderstanding.
Don't be coy, Arny.
Passive-aggressive does not play here.

When one amplifier is found to be
preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
are "preference", or "distinguishable"..

???????????????

If I found that one amp was preferable to another, I'd
probably call it *preferable*. If I wanted to be a little
systematic about the nature of my preferences, I'd probably
express them along the lines of AES standard 22.

"Clean" implies
that the listener has an internal reference of
undistorted sound.

Bob shows once again that he doesn't get stright-wire bypass
tests, just to cite one popular and effective
counter-example.

But, I believe you recently referred
to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.

Just for small differences.
All these imprecise terms, "small", "clean", etc., are doorways for you to
impose your own arbitrary prejudices on what should be a neutral scientific
process.

According to that, a listener could not have an
internal memory of what "clean" sounds like.

That would be a another big misunderstanding.

If he could,
then he could remember what amplifiers sound like as
well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without switching quickly between them.

Trouble is, most amps used for reproducing music differ only
in small amounts.

However, if we took this discussion into the realm of MI
amps, it might get interesting.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me,

Obviously Bob, and neither does "truth"

because I do not have an absolute remembered standard of
what undistorted sound is like.

Didn't we just discuss straight wire bypass type tests?
Where were you, Bob?

I have a season
subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
time I attend, my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

Reality can do that, You should get out more, Bob.

Nevertheless, I do not challenge subjectivists when they
use the word "clean", because it is one of the symbols
they use to organize their perceptions.


But you, as an ABXer, are trying to do science.

That would be yet another big misunderstanding.
No misunderstanding. I didn't say you were successful.

Personally, I do not
believe that it is good science, as it has been practiced
with respect to hifi.

Given all the misapprehensions of it that you have Bob...

But if that is the mode of thought
that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all
of your prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate
the process.

?????????????
Eh?

"Clean" is not a scientific term, and it
should not be used in the context of attempts to
scientifically compare amplifiers.

????????????????
Eh?

"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.
**
As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.
**
As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
et...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to
throw
in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of
when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying to
argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I ahve
enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and
never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion
and
low
noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find
the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories,
there
is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?



Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.






When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you heard
more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?

They can remember as good sounding.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of
what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without
switching quickly between them.

Actually it implies the opposite.

He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do not
have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I
have
a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have
some
idea of what clean sounds like?

Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of
the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
ABXer,
are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
differnces
and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.


The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
inaccurate.

You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of circuit,
to
determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
measurable.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply
means
it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.

It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.

Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is not
beneficial to your argument.

What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the wall
and hoping it sticks.

Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.

Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an argument.

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

" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output
levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
they call "truth".

*Clean* as a favorable descriptor for audio gear, has been around for at
least 50 years that I can remember.

I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other
way when referring to the sound of an audio system.

Agreed.

What other meaning do you think of when talking about
the sound of an audio system?

Bor Morein? Hmmm, how to relate clean to the voices that he hears in his
head? I'll get back with you Mike... ;-)

I have to call you on this one Arny, that should Bore Moron.


This is about self consistency.

What would the self, be and where is the inconsistency?

I understand that you
are trying to argue that ABX boxes are the only valid way
to compare amplifiers.

That would be a big misunderstanding.

But you owe it to yourself, or
your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
By invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Given that your premise is a grotesque misunderstanding Bob, this can only
go downhill.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine
the claimed perceptions of others.

That would be another big misunderstanding.

It only weakens your own argument.


You believe that ABX boxes are the only way
to compare amplifiers.

That would remain a big misunderstanding.

When one amplifier is found to be
preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
are "preference", or "distinguishable"..

???????????????

If I found that one amp was preferable to another, I'd probably call it
*preferable*. If I wanted to be a little systematic about the nature of my
preferences, I'd probably express them along the lines of AES standard 22.

"Clean" implies
that the listener has an internal reference of
undistorted sound.

Bob shows once again that he doesn't get stright-wire bypass tests, just
to cite one popular and effective counter-example.

But, I believe you recently referred
to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.

Just for small differences.

According to that, a listener could not have an
internal memory of what "clean" sounds like.

That would be a another big misunderstanding.

If he could,
then he could remember what amplifiers sound like as
well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without switching quickly between them.

Trouble is, most amps used for reproducing music differ only in small
amounts.

However, if we took this discussion into the realm of MI amps, it might
get interesting.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me,

Obviously Bob, and neither does "truth"

because I do not have an absolute remembered standard of
what undistorted sound is like.

Didn't we just discuss straight wire bypass type tests? Where were you,
Bob?

I have a season
subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
time I attend, my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

Reality can do that, You should get out more, Bob.

Nevertheless, I do not challenge subjectivists when they
use the word "clean", because it is one of the symbols
they use to organize their perceptions.


But you, as an ABXer, are trying to do science.

That would be yet another big misunderstanding.

Personally, I do not
believe that it is good science, as it has been practiced
with respect to hifi.

Given all the misapprehensions of it that you have Bob...

But if that is the mode of thought
that you wish to use, you have to carefully examine all
of your prejudices and assumptions, lest they contaminate
the process.

?????????????

"Clean" is not a scientific term, and it
should not be used in the context of attempts to
scientifically compare amplifiers.

????????????????

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

" wrote in
message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output
levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels
free to throw in such relative terms whenever they
like, in that constantly shifting reference framework
they call "truth".

*Clean* as a favorable descriptor for audio gear, has been
around for at least 50 years that I can remember.

Age promotes prejudice, and prejudice promotes fraud.


Thank you for admitting that you are an old fraud.

I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other
way when referring to the sound of an audio system.

Agreed.
That does not mean that the term has meaning.

That means it has meaning just not to you, because you are a liar and a
fool.

What other meaning do you think of when talking about
the sound of an audio system?

Bor Morein? Hmmm, how to relate clean to the voices that he
hears in his head? I'll get back with you Mike... ;-)

This is about self consistency.

What would the self, be and where is the inconsistency?
The term is well known. It refers for the need of any cogent argument to
be
internally self consistent. As grotesquely inflated your sense of self is,
you should recognize I am not referring to the "self" that is Arny
Kreuger.

I understand that you
are trying to argue that ABX boxes are the only valid way
to compare amplifiers.

That would be a big misunderstanding.
Being coy, Arny?

He's just calling you on you rlie Bob. Please provide one quote that backs
up the allegation.

But you owe it to yourself, or
your position, to make sure your argument is consistent.
By invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Given that your premise is a grotesque misunderstanding Bob,
this can only go downhill.

Your position is already six feet under. I have to use a shovel to find
you.

That's just your own bull**** you have to plow through to get to the light.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine
the claimed perceptions of others.

That would be another big misunderstanding.

Being coy, Arny?

No, he's just calling you on another lie that you can't provide a quote for.

It only weakens your own argument.


You believe that ABX boxes are the only way
to compare amplifiers.

That would remain a big misunderstanding.
Don't be coy, Arny.
Passive-aggressive does not play here.


Provide a quote, Bob.

When one amplifier is found to be
preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
are "preference", or "distinguishable"..

???????????????

If I found that one amp was preferable to another, I'd
probably call it *preferable*. If I wanted to be a little
systematic about the nature of my preferences, I'd probably
express them along the lines of AES standard 22.

"Clean" implies
that the listener has an internal reference of
undistorted sound.

Bob shows once again that he doesn't get stright-wire bypass
tests, just to cite one popular and effective
counter-example.

But, I believe you recently referred
to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.

Just for small differences.

All these imprecise terms, "small", "clean", etc., are doorways for you to
impose your own arbitrary prejudices on what should be a neutral
scientific
process.

You are the King of Imprecise. List the times you'vedone any bias
controlled, level matched comparisons.

According to that, a listener could not have an
internal memory of what "clean" sounds like.

That would be a another big misunderstanding.

If he could,
then he could remember what amplifiers sound like as
well. This would imply that comparisons could be made
without switching quickly between them.

Trouble is, most amps used for reproducing music differ only
in small amounts.

However, if we took this discussion into the realm of MI
amps, it might get interesting.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me,

Obviously Bob, and neither does "truth"

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound,

If the mega watt amp is flat with low distorion and noise over it's
operatiing range, as most are, then it certainly could. SS amps I've seen
measured are usually flat over their oeprating range until they get to the
limit of their max power, tehn they start to go through the roof.

If you had something like the QSC putting out 700 wpc into 8 ohms and you
know you will never need it deliver anything near that for more than a few
milliseconds, it would indeed be quality sound. Certianly better than a 150
WPC amp being driven to clipping frequently, which probably happens more
often than people realize.


but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

In what sense do you mean properly mate?

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

The subjective review portions of SP's equipment reviews are essentially
worthless IMO, since they don't use any sort of quick switching.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs?

I don't hink so, for the reasons I outlined above.

That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.

If you can get a mega watt amp for the same price as a lesser powered amp,
that keeps you from running the risk of ever clipping, I think I vote for
the bigger wattage amp every time.

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
et...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to
throw
in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think of
when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying
to
argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I
ahve
enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and
never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible distortion
and
low
noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find
the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories,
there
is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?



Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.






When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be used
are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you
heard
more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?

They can remember as good sounding.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory of
what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be
made
without
switching quickly between them.

Actually it implies the opposite.

He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do
not
have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I
have
a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time
I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have
some
idea of what clean sounds like?

Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one of
the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
ABXer,
are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
differnces
and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.


The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices
and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot
be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
inaccurate.

You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
circuit,
to
determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
measurable.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply
means
it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.

It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.

Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is
not
beneficial to your argument.

What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the
wall
and hoping it sticks.

Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.

Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an argument.

Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.

" wrote in message
k.net...

You are a stooge.

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

You are a stooge.

"Mark D" wrote in message
...
"Bret Said"

QSC amps are actually excellent for their designed and sold purpose,
which is not domestic hi-fi. I worked on a HOW organ and PA integrated
system that used three of them in "straight" mode and one other used as
a rotating speaker driver. Sounded great.

As a hi-fi amp they are probably better than some of the **** sold
thorough mid-fi channels but are audibly deficient when used with high
efficiency speakers at low volumes. In other words, they sound just lie
a Mcintosh MC1000-or any solid state Mac over about 150 wattsw a
channel.
======================================

I'm sorry to take this thread off onto a different tangent, but I
believe the second paragraph to be a bit vague, and misleading.

I'll agree totally along the lines that one wouldn't buy (or need) an
Mac MC-1000 amp, and then decide to use it to power a pair of ultra
efficient speakers designed for Single Triode Tube Amps , or a tiny pair
of B+W DM-302's.

And I'll agree quantity ( mega wpc) doesn't equate to high quality
sound, but then at what point will a McIntosh Amp such as the MC-1000,
or as you say any Mac Amp over 150wpc have any value, or worth?

Let us take a regular example. Are you then saying that a Mac 2205 Amp
(205wpc) or lets say a more modern MC-352 would not sound, or be any
better than a QSC Amp driving a pair of fairly efficient JBL L-100's?
(Or a similar L Model of the day?)

I think most here understand one should mate components properly, this
I'll agree on.

I'll probably be opening a large can of worms here stating a Stereophile
review of the MC-1000 Monoblocks a few years back, but didn't the
reviewer comment with these words about the MC-1000. "They have
micro-dynamics in spades", and didn't sound at all flat, or lacking at
lower volumes.

I'm not trying to come to McIntosh's defense here, but for as the above
statements, can we then just say, that all amps that are rated over
150wpc have no merit with efficient speaker designs? That it is just
essentially a waste of money to purchase these larger behemoths?
Mark D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure this argument becomes true at some point. Much of the finesse in
the reproduction of music is with transients. Certain CD recordings have
enormous dynamic range. While the amplifier may not audibly clip, the
slewing rate slows as the signal approaches the rails. This produces dynamic
compression within the amp.
Class A/AB designs have the advantage that they need not be undersized,
since crossover distortion is not a concern.
Larger amplifiers tend to have more sophisticated circuitry than smaller
ones. This can manifest in extended low frequency response even at small
signal conditions.
British amplifiers seem to be an exception, in that there are many low power
British amps that seem to work without the compromises I have seen in low
power offerings from many companies.
Bob Morein

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
et...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to
throw
in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly
shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think
of
when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are trying
to
argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I
ahve
enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used and
never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible
distortion
and
low
noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never find
the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory memories,
there
is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?



Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.






When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be
used
are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking
about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you
heard
more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?

They can remember as good sounding.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory
of
what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be
made
without
switching quickly between them.

Actually it implies the opposite.

He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do
not
have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like. I
have
a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every time
I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not have
some
idea of what clean sounds like?

Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one
of
the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
ABXer,
are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is
good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
differnces
and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.


The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices
and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box cannot
be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence of
another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
inaccurate.

You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
circuit,
to
determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
measurable.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context
of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply
means
it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.

It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are so
challenged.

Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand" is
not
beneficial to your argument.

What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the
wall
and hoping it sticks.

Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.

Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an argument.

Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.

Change your flea collar.

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
et...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free to
throw
in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly
shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way when
referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you think
of
when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are
trying
to
argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since I
ahve
enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used
and
never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible
distortion
and
low
noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never
find
the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory
memories,
there
is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never
have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?



Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.






When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be
used
are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking
about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you
heard
more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?

They can remember as good sounding.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal memory
of
what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be
made
without
switching quickly between them.

Actually it implies the opposite.

He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I do
not
have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is like.
I
have
a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
time
I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not
have
some
idea of what clean sounds like?

Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is one
of
the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
ABXer,
are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is
good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
differnces
and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.


The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many predjudices
and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box
cannot
be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence
of
another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
inaccurate.

You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
circuit,
to
determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
measurable.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the context
of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it simply
means
it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.

It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are
so
challenged.

Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand"
is
not
beneficial to your argument.

What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against the
wall
and hoping it sticks.

Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.

Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an
argument.

Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.

Change your flea collar.

Non sequitur reply noted. Thanks for admitting to lying.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
et...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

QSC amps are designed to be clean *
with low impedance
reactive loads and at either high or low output levels.

Clean doesn't seem to be an engineering term.
Define please. Is it a set of agreed measurements,
that are known to correspond to 'clean sound' ?

Clean = low noise and distortion.

Another relative term. Apparently, Arny's gang feels free
to
throw
in
such
relative terms whenever they like, in that constantly
shifting
reference
framework they call "truth".


I have never heard the term "clean" used in any other way
when
referring
to
the sound of an audio system. What other meaning do you
think
of
when
talking about the sound of an audio system?

This is about selfr consistency. I understand that you are
trying
to
argue
that ABX boxes are the only valid way to compare amplifiers.

Then you demonstrate you are an utter and complete idiot, since
I
ahve
enver
said any such thing, nor have I impiled it.

But you owe it
to yourself, or your position, to make sure your argument is
consistent.
By
invoking the term "clean", you undermine that.

Clean amplification is a term that I have frequently heard used
and
never
doubted the context. It simply means amps with inaudible
distortion
and
low
noise.
Well, well, Mikey never doubted. One who never doubts can never
find
the
truth.
But there is no way for you to know, if you cannot remember what
undistorted
sound is like. Since you claim people have brief auditory
memories,
there
is
no way that they could.
Contradiction, Mikey. You just tripped over your own laces.
Truely, you are simply a mouthpiece for Arny Krueger.

Don't use relative terms if you are trying to undermine the
claimed
perceptions of others.

Don't put words in my mouth or claim I've said things I never
have.
Don't use relative terms. Do not use "clean".

It only weakens your own argument. You believe that
ABX boxes are the only way to compare amplifiers.

I have no such belief, why do you insist on lying?
Why contradict yourself by lying?



Find one single quote of me ever saying any such thing.






When one amplifier is
found to be preferable to another, the only terms that can be
used
are
"preference", or "distinguishable"..

That's fine when talking about preference, I'm usually talking
about
difference, without which prefernce is moot.

"Clean" implies that the listener has
an internal reference of undistorted sound. But, I believe you
recently
referred to a finding that people have very short auditory
memories.

Sure, it's very difficult to remember accurately, any sound you
heard
more
than a few seconds ago, this is well documented.

Then the term "clean" has no meaning. How could one know whether
something
is "clean" if he cannot remember what "clean" sounds like?

They can remember as good sounding.

According to that, a listener could not have an internal
memory
of
what
"clean" sounds like. If he could, then he could remember what
amplifiers
sound like as well. This would imply that comparisons could be
made
without
switching quickly between them.

Actually it implies the opposite.

He could remember that the sound was pleasing, but it's kind of
meaningless
when listening to sound systems through different speakers and
different
rooms.

The term "clean" does not have much meaning to me, because I
do
not
have
an
absolute remembered standard of what undistorted sound is
like.
I
have
a
season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra, and every
time
I
attend,
my perceptions of accuracy are challenged.

If you are listening to live, unamplified music, how can you not
have
some
idea of what clean sounds like?

Nevertheless, I do not
challenge
subjectivists when they use the word "clean", because it is
one
of
the
symbols they use to organize their perceptions. But you, as an
ABXer,
are
trying to do science. Personally, I do not believe that it is
good
science,

What I do is acknowledge that science has a role in determing
differnces
and
in acknowledging that sighted comparisons are not reliable.


The reason to use ABX or any DBT is to remove as many
predjudices
and
assumptions, that's why they are used.

They are not used by us, Mikey. As I pointed out, an ABX box
cannot
be
proven to be transparent, because it would require the existence
of
another
ABX box that was known to be tranparent. Ergo, ABX is inherently
inaccurate.

You are an idiot, an ABX comparator can be tested in and out of
circuit,
to
determine if it alters the sound. And any alteration would also be
measurable.

"Clean" is
not a scientific term, and it should not be used in the
context
of
attempts
to scientifically compare amplifiers.

I don't know that it's being used in a scientific context, it
simply
means
it sounds clean, IOW free of spurious noise and distortion.

It is a term that most people seem to understand, sorry you are
so
challenged.

Don't use it, Mikey. The phrase "most people seem to understand"
is
not
beneficial to your argument.

What argument are you making? You're just throwing **** against
the
wall
and hoping it sticks.

Don't use the term "clean", Mikey. It does not help your argument.

Don't pretend that your endless stream of contradictions is an
argument.

Don't pretend you know I'm pretending. I am not.

Change your flea collar.

Non sequitur reply noted. Thanks for admitting to lying.


Thanks for being so crushingly predictable.