"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:30:50 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:48:13 GMT, wrote:

When the juice is there, the sound is there. Just
because there are models that don't have the good design required,
doesn't
mean that all tube amps are bad.

I would never say all are bad, but their cost vs. performance ration is
not
good, and there are many really expensive ones that are just awful.
WAVAC.

When you listened to this amp, what was it about the sound that made
you think that is was awful? And what speakers did you use when you
auditioned it?

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as anyone can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

At least according to your spirited
defense of DBT/ABX.

ABX is for subtle differences, there's nothing subtle about the awful
performance of the WAVAC. $350,000 for a monoblock amp with awful FR and
double digit distortion.

The only possible reason to want one, is to show you have more money than
sense.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as anyone can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.

At least according to your spirited
defense of DBT/ABX.

ABX is for subtle differences, there's nothing subtle about the awful
performance of the WAVAC.

Then you should ace any ABX test. But you haven't, have you?

For you to comment on the sound of a piece of gear without even
listening to it is folly.

$350,000 for a monoblock amp with awful FR and
double digit distortion.

Do you even KNOW what you're talking about?

Nope. You can't even get the price of the component correct. The fact
that you're only overquoting the price by 100% doesn't seem to deter
you.

The only possible reason to want one, is to show you have more money than
sense.

Or that you like the sound as well as the build quality and the look
of the thing.

Mike, you shouldn't envy things that you have no chance of ever
having. It's unhealthy.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing it.

At least according to your spirited
defense of DBT/ABX.

ABX is for subtle differences, there's nothing subtle about the awful
performance of the WAVAC.

Then you should ace any ABX test. But you haven't, have you?

For you to comment on the sound of a piece of gear without even
listening to it is folly.


Not if you understand what the meassurements are revealing.

$350,000 for a monoblock amp with awful FR and
double digit distortion.

Do you even KNOW what you're talking about?

Nope. You can't even get the price of the component correct.

$350,000 for the pair, such a better deal. You get a pair of anchors.


The fact
that you're only overquoting the price by 100% doesn't seem to deter
you.


It has nothing to do with the performance, which is the main point. At 50%
of the price I stated, they're still **** and still overpriced.

The only possible reason to want one, is to show you have more money than
sense.

Or that you like the sound as well as the build quality and the look
of the thing.

That someone would like the sound an anp with double digit distortion is
insane.

Mike, you shouldn't envy things that you have no chance of ever
having. It's unhealthy.

Why in the world would I be envious of something that can be outperformed by
any SS amp?

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:
If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of **** from the review
measurements, then you have no business discussing it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making for some
time: that reduced to its bare essence, the "objectivist" attitude to
amplifiers is that "amplifiers all sound identical except when they
don't," which is hardly helpful. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making
for some time: that reduced to its bare essence, the
"objectivist" attitude to amplifiers is that "amplifiers
all sound identical except when they don't," which is
hardly helpful. :-)

Just goes to show how non-helpful things get when Atkinson
tries to put words in his opponents mouths.

We can go futher a lot Atkinson's staement in some very
helpful ways.

For example, it's very likely that 90% or more of the SS
amplifiers in Stereophile's RCL could *not* be distinguished
by Stereophile's reviewers, based only on sound quality.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making
for some time: that reduced to its bare essence, the
"objectivist" attitude to amplifiers is that "amplifiers
all sound identical except when they don't," which is
hardly helpful. :-)

Just goes to show how non-helpful things get when Atkinson tries to put
words in his opponents mouths.

We can go futher a lot Atkinson's staement in some very helpful ways.

For example, it's very likely that 90% or more of the SS amplifiers in
Stereophile's RCL could *not* be distinguished by Stereophile's reviewers,
based only on sound quality.

Based on the hearing ability of his reviewers it's unlikely they can hear
much of anything.

Mike McKelvy has now endorsed WAVAC ampliers for those people who like
tube amplifiers and have the wherewithal to purchase them.

Not only are they selling for half of his stated idea of their cost,
he says that they are like every tube amp he's ever heard, only more
so, and he has found tube amps to offer a significant difference over
the standard SS amp.

And since he's now on record as saying that you don't even have to
listen to them and that you don't need a dbt or abx trial to
confidently choose them, you can feel confident that they will offer
you the ultimate in tube amplification.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Mike McKelvy has now endorsed WAVAC ampliers for those people who like
tube amplifiers and have the wherewithal to purchase them.

Especially if you like oodles of distortion. Come to think of it that
pretty much descibes you.


Not only are they selling for half of his stated idea of their cost,
he says that they are like every tube amp he's ever heard, only more
so, and he has found tube amps to offer a significant difference over
the standard SS amp.

Please provide the quote for that. I have said many times that tube amps
can and sometimes obvioulsly do sound different from SS, SET's being the
prime example.

And since he's now on record as saying that you don't even have to
listen to them and that you don't need a dbt or abx trial to
confidently choose them, you can feel confident that they will offer
you the ultimate in tube amplification.

You should work for Atkinson, neither of you seems to be able to tell the
truth.

On 25 Nov 2005 05:24:34 -0800, "John Atkinson"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:
If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of **** from the review
measurements, then you have no business discussing it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making for some
time: that reduced to its bare essence, the "objectivist" attitude to
amplifiers is that "amplifiers all sound identical except when they
don't," which is hardly helpful. :-)

Idiot. An amplifier putting out a lot of distortion will obviously
sound different than one that is putting out orders of magnitude less
distortion. PLEASE quote a single "objectivst" disagreeing with this.
Sheesh!

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:
If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of **** from the review
measurements, then you have no business discussing it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making for some
time:

At no point in the post did I state what a charlatan you are.

that reduced to its bare essence, the "objectivist" attitude to
amplifiers is that "amplifiers all sound identical except when they
don't," which is hardly helpful. :-)

And for umpteenth time you prove me and every other critic of yours to be
100% correct. You are a fraud and a liar.

The facts have been stated repeatedly regarding what constitutes gear that
sounds the same. The WAVAC is very far outside those criteria.

Thanks again for confirming why you are not to be trusted.

John Atkinson said:

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making for some
time: that reduced to its bare essence, the "objectivist" attitude to
amplifiers is that "amplifiers all sound identical except when they
don't," which is hardly helpful. :-)

I will note, Mr. Tweako-Freako Editor in Chief, that you have plagiarized
one of Tom Nousiane's pithy pearls of perspicacity without due and proper
attribution. Shame on you. :-)

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what
distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.

How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a DBT
is unnecessary?

wrote in message
ink.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what
distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as
anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.

How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a
DBT is unnecessary?


That's what I say, too!
The differences between some ss cd players are gross.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what
distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as
anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.

How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a
DBT is unnecessary?


That's what I say, too!
The differences between some ss cd players are gross.

Lack of data to support your position noted.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:11:45 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what
distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.

How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a DBT
is unnecessary?

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that you are
wrong? A dbt will surely confirm what you are saying *if* you have the
auditory acuity to discern such differences. This isn't an a priori
situation, because you haven't proven your ability in this area (who
knows what kind of hearing abnormalities you have? Who knows whether
your anti-tube bias is so overwhelming that you would automatically
hear a difference, even if there were NO difference (perhaps you might
THINK you were listening to a tube amp when in fact you weren't).

Now, if you were talking to yourself, I could have no argument. But
you are making statements to others, and you need to hold yourself to
the same standards that you hold others.

Get a properly proctored test and maybe we'll talk.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:11:45 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what
distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as
anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.

How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a
DBT
is unnecessary?

How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that you are
wrong?

Stated many times, confirmed, not so much.

A dbt will surely confirm what you are saying *if* you have the
auditory acuity to discern such differences.

Who do you think is unable to hear 10% THD?

This isn't an a priori
situation, because you haven't proven your ability in this area (who
knows what kind of hearing abnormalities you have?

My doctor tells me my hearingis fine. My own listening to test tones tells
me it's fine.
If you wish to hire someone at your expense to give me a hearing test, go
right ahead.

Who knows whether
your anti-tube bias is so overwhelming that you would automatically
hear a difference, even if there were NO difference (perhaps you might
THINK you were listening to a tube amp when in fact you weren't).

It's not a bias, it's a prefernce, I prefer the most accurate and reliable
equipment I can get. I have heard tube gear and sometimes it sounds quite
nice, I've heard other tube gear that sounded awful.

Now, if you were talking to yourself, I could have no argument. But
you are making statements to others, and you need to hold yourself to
the same standards that you hold others.

Get a properly proctored test and maybe we'll talk.

Again, when talking about the amount of distortion present in a WAVAC amp,
there would be vastly more people who could hear the differnce than could
not. It is so far out of the range of what is considered high fidelity or
low distortion, that it's difference is obvious.

wrote in message
nk.net

Why in the world would I be envious of something that can
be outperformed by any SS amp?

Because Weil tries to play the "envey card" early and often
because he's envious of anybody who isn't trapped in a
dead-end job in a cheap bar that is so disreputable that he
is afraid to mention it on RAO.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:50:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Why in the world would I be envious of something that can
be outperformed by any SS amp?

Because Weil tries to play the "envey card" early and often
because he's envious of anybody who isn't trapped in a
dead-end job in a cheap bar that is so disreputable that he
is afraid to mention it on RAO.

Said Arnold in his crumb-infested underwear while taking a break from
"work".

Besides, I don't know what this "envey card" is.

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

Because Weil tries to play the "envey card"

Said Arnold in his crumb-infested underwear while taking a break from "work".

Arnii isn't allowed to use the laundry equipment in his hovel because of the
incident in 1988 involving the toilets and the septic tank.

Besides, I don't know what this "envey card" is.

Arnii uses it as a fig leaf when he holds a "69 pitty party".


..
..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
nk.net

Why in the world would I be envious of something that can
be outperformed by any SS amp?

Because Weil tries to play the "envey card" .....

if "ireny" killed.