[Ian Iveson]

Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep Mountain
High", IIRC, in part because its complex arrangement and
dynamic range were beyond the capabilities of car radios.
When I heard these stories they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is a
converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the capabilities of
the CD and my stereo system seem beyond the music, like fish
and chips on a plate. I'm sure it was better on my Dansette,
wrapped in newspaper. Same with Little Richard I find, and
possibly much popular music of the time, which I must admit
was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum, dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can
be better for high fidelity?

And are there any engineers, particularly those who expect
us to know what "EE" stands for, who believe in God? And if
God is beyond science and engineering surely it must be
admitted that there may be other things similarly
intangible, such as the superiority of valves in audio
amplifiers? Even I, an atheist, can see that mathematical
analysis, for all its virtues, may be missing the essential
point.

Most people have never seen a unicorn, so it's easy for
unbelievers to put up a united front, particularly since
each believer has a different story, whereas denial is
always the same. The other day I saw a real unicorn on the
telly. Truth isn't hegemony, either.

Ian

[Nick Gorham]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep Mountain
High", IIRC, in part because its complex arrangement and
dynamic range were beyond the capabilities of car radios.
When I heard these stories they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is a
converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the capabilities of
the CD and my stereo system seem beyond the music, like fish
and chips on a plate. I'm sure it was better on my Dansette,
wrapped in newspaper. Same with Little Richard I find, and
possibly much popular music of the time, which I must admit
was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum, dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can
be better for high fidelity?


Depends on what definition of high fidelity you are talking about. If
its Peter Walkers, then maybe not. But that doesn't worry all of us
using, building and enjoying music played (and slightly modified) by them.

--
Nick

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Ian Iveson wrote:
´
Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can be better
for high fidelity?


Depends on what definition of high fidelity you are talking about. If its
Peter Walkers, then maybe not. But that doesn't worry all of us using,
building and enjoying music played (and slightly modified) by them.


My point of view is very similar to Nick's. For my own domestic
listening, I have chosen a system (PPP EL34 valve/tube amp and
Tannoy or B+W speakers) that give me the most pleasing musical
experience in my room. Building and evaluating over a long period
of time a tube amp you have built yourself is a very worthwhile
experience.

Regards to all
Iain

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep Mountain
High", IIRC, in part because its complex arrangement and
dynamic range were beyond the capabilities of car radios.
When I heard these stories they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is a
converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the capabilities of
the CD and my stereo system seem beyond the music, like fish
and chips on a plate. I'm sure it was better on my Dansette,
wrapped in newspaper. Same with Little Richard I find, and
possibly much popular music of the time, which I must admit
was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum, dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can
be better for high fidelity?

And are there any engineers, particularly those who expect
us to know what "EE" stands for, who believe in God?

Yet you ASSUME we know what ROMH stands for.

Cheers

Ian

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 18, 3:04*am, Nick Gorham wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep Mountain
High", IIRC, in part because its complex arrangement and
dynamic range were beyond the capabilities of car radios.
When I heard these stories they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is a
converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the capabilities of
the CD and my stereo system seem beyond the music, like fish
and chips on a plate. I'm sure it was better on my Dansette,
wrapped in newspaper. Same with Little Richard I find, and
possibly much popular music of the time, which I must admit
was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum, dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can
be better for high fidelity?

Depends on what definition of high fidelity you are talking about. If
its Peter Walkers, then maybe not. But that doesn't worry all of us
using, building and enjoying music played (and slightly modified) by them..

--
Nick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Enjoyment of tubes requires a certain amount of faith in the first
place. Just as long as it does not become revealed religion, I believe
that it is well-placed.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Ian Iveson]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep Mountain
High", IIRC, in part because its complex arrangement and
dynamic range were beyond the capabilities of car radios.
When I heard these stories they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is a
converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the capabilities
of the CD and my stereo system seem beyond the music,
like fish and chips on a plate. I'm sure it was better on
my Dansette, wrapped in newspaper. Same with Little
Richard I find, and possibly much popular music of the
time, which I must admit was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum, dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier
can be better for high fidelity?

And are there any engineers, particularly those who
expect us to know what "EE" stands for, who believe in
God?

Yet you ASSUME we know what ROMH stands for.


My mistake. RDMH.

D isn't anywhere near O on my keyboard, so it's not a typo.
At a guess, I made a different error to begin with, then my
spell-checker complained, so I corrected my mistake, and
didn't notice it had changed the D to an O. The letters look
similar.

Now, I hoped you would have the wit to see that RDMH refers
to the words capitalised two sentences ago. Any assumption
that you might otherwise recognise the acronym would
obviously have been pointless because I've just made it up.

10/10 for observation. Thanks. I guess comprehension might
come later.

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep Mountain
High", IIRC, in part because its complex arrangement and
dynamic range were beyond the capabilities of car radios.
When I heard these stories they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is a
converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the capabilities
of the CD and my stereo system seem beyond the music,
like fish and chips on a plate. I'm sure it was better on
my Dansette, wrapped in newspaper. Same with Little
Richard I find, and possibly much popular music of the
time, which I must admit was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum, dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier
can be better for high fidelity?

And are there any engineers, particularly those who
expect us to know what "EE" stands for, who believe in
God?
Yet you ASSUME we know what ROMH stands for.


My mistake. RDMH.

D isn't anywhere near O on my keyboard, so it's not a typo.
At a guess, I made a different error to begin with, then my
spell-checker complained, so I corrected my mistake, and
didn't notice it had changed the D to an O. The letters look
similar.

Now, I hoped you would have the wit to see that RDMH refers
to the words capitalised two sentences ago.

Oh, I did, but to assume that would have been dangerous in light of your
comment about EE. It is normal practice to place the abbreviation in
parenthesis directly after the actual words but since you did not do
this I was not sure what the abbreviation referred to.

Any assumption
that you might otherwise recognise the acronym would
obviously have been pointless because I've just made it up.

10/10 for observation. Thanks. I guess comprehension might
come later.

Indeed.

Ian

[Ian Iveson]

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep
Mountain High", IIRC, in part because its complex
arrangement and dynamic range were beyond the
capabilities of car radios. When I heard these stories
they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is
a converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the
capabilities of the CD and my stereo system seem beyond
the music, like fish and chips on a plate. I'm sure it
was better on my Dansette, wrapped in newspaper. Same
with Little Richard I find, and possibly much popular
music of the time, which I must admit was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum,
dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who
And are there any engineers, particularly those who
expect us to know what "EE" stands for, who believe in
God?

Yet you ASSUME we know what ROMH stands for.


My mistake. RDMH.

D isn't anywhere near O on my keyboard, so it's not a
typo. At a guess, I made a different error to begin with,
then my spell-checker complained, so I corrected my
mistake, and didn't notice it had changed the D to an O.
The letters look similar.

Now, I hoped you would have the wit to see that RDMH
refers to the words capitalised two sentences ago.

Oh, I did, but to assume that would have been dangerous in
light of your comment about EE. It is normal practice to
place the abbreviation in parenthesis directly after the
actual words but since you did not do this I was not sure
what the abbreviation referred to.

Great engineers are able to transcend convention. Otherwise
there could be no progress.

Anyway...do you believe that a valve amplifier can be better
for high fidelity?

Ian

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Ian Iveson wrote:
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep
Mountain High", IIRC, in part because its complex
arrangement and dynamic range were beyond the
capabilities of car radios. When I heard these stories
they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is
a converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the
capabilities of the CD and my stereo system seem beyond
the music, like fish and chips on a plate. I'm sure it
was better on my Dansette, wrapped in newspaper. Same
with Little Richard I find, and possibly much popular
music of the time, which I must admit was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum,
dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who
And are there any engineers, particularly those who
expect us to know what "EE" stands for, who believe in
God?

Yet you ASSUME we know what ROMH stands for.

My mistake. RDMH.

D isn't anywhere near O on my keyboard, so it's not a
typo. At a guess, I made a different error to begin with,
then my spell-checker complained, so I corrected my
mistake, and didn't notice it had changed the D to an O.
The letters look similar.

Now, I hoped you would have the wit to see that RDMH
refers to the words capitalised two sentences ago.
Oh, I did, but to assume that would have been dangerous in
light of your comment about EE. It is normal practice to
place the abbreviation in parenthesis directly after the
actual words but since you did not do this I was not sure
what the abbreviation referred to.

Great engineers are able to transcend convention. Otherwise
there could be no progress.


Unlike great philosophers.

Anyway...do you believe that a valve amplifier can be better
for high fidelity?


As any competent engineer would tell you it depends on your definitions
of 'believe', 'valve amplifier', 'better' and 'high fidelity'.

Cheers

Ian

[keithr]

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
...
Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his band-leaders. His
first disaster was "River Deep Mountain High", IIRC, in part because its
complex arrangement and dynamic range were beyond the capabilities of car
radios. When I heard these stories they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is a converse to the
ROMH syndrome: somehow the capabilities of the CD and my stereo system
seem beyond the music, like fish and chips on a plate. I'm sure it was
better on my Dansette, wrapped in newspaper. Same with Little Richard I
find, and possibly much popular music of the time, which I must admit was
before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is perfectly lit and
nicely presented, as in a museum, dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively ubiquitous assumption
here, even though it barely hangs together grammatically, and is obviously
nonsensical, considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can be better for
high fidelity?

And are there any engineers, particularly those who expect us to know what
"EE" stands for, who believe in God? And if God is beyond science and
engineering surely it must be admitted that there may be other things
similarly intangible, such as the superiority of valves in audio
amplifiers? Even I, an atheist, can see that mathematical analysis, for
all its virtues, may be missing the essential point.

Most people have never seen a unicorn, so it's easy for unbelievers to put
up a united front, particularly since each believer has a different story,
whereas denial is always the same. The other day I saw a real unicorn on
the telly. Truth isn't hegemony, either.

Ian

That must be some really good **** yer smokin' there boy

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jun 18, 3:47*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Phil Spector played the studio, according to one of his
band-leaders. His first disaster was "River Deep Mountain
High", IIRC, in part because its complex arrangement and
dynamic range were beyond the capabilities of car radios.
When I heard these stories they seemed like revelations.

Just listening to the Ronettes and it's plain there is a
converse to the ROMH syndrome: somehow the capabilities of
the CD and my stereo system seem beyond the music, like fish
and chips on a plate. I'm sure it was better on my Dansette,
wrapped in newspaper. Same with Little Richard I find, and
possibly much popular music of the time, which I must admit
was before mine.

It's not that it's not clear. On the contrary, it is
perfectly lit and nicely presented, as in a museum, dead.

"Audio is engineering" is becoming an oppressively
ubiquitous assumption here, even though it barely hangs
together grammatically, and is obviously nonsensical,
considering the words are surely only very rarely
interchangeable in common usage.

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can
be better for high fidelity?

And are there any engineers, particularly those who expect
us to know what "EE" stands for, who believe in God? And if
God is beyond science and engineering surely it must be
admitted that there may be other things similarly
intangible, such as the superiority of valves in audio
amplifiers? Even I, an atheist, can see that mathematical
analysis, for all its virtues, may be missing the essential
point.

Most people have never seen a unicorn, so it's easy for
unbelievers to put up a united front, particularly since
each believer has a different story, whereas denial is
always the same. The other day I saw a real unicorn on the
telly. Truth isn't hegemony, either.

Ian

What an excellent post.

However, our view here at RAT on the outlook of engineers is skewed by
the low quality of many of the loudest engineers here, for instance
Pasternack, who would lie about professional matters for personal
reasons, Pinkerton, who was a bully with a perfectly closed mind, and
so on. It is also human nature to forget the many good and helpful
engineers we have here because they do not get involved in flame wars
but stick to their last.

On the substance of what Ian says: It really depends on what you
consider science. By way of example, the problem with many of the
loudest silicon slime who come to RAT to cause trouble is that they do
not (and cannot, or they would have no case) consider psychology a
science; it makes them uneasy because their minds are not capable of
handling anything that is not clearcut, black and white. Yet
openminded engineers (many for instance that I know in automobile
specification and design) are very keen on psychology as a guideline
in ergonomics, as long as the results are properly arrived at and
presented. Even in audio, some of the tenth-rate engineers among the
silicon slime, like Krueger, are in favour of double blind tests, the
most reliable predictor in the psychologist's toolbox.

Peter Walker was of course right when he said all competently designed
amps should sound the same. The problem is that we have not yet
arrived at the perfectly competently designed amp. The silicon slime
claim we have because their measure of perfection is the absence of
noise. There is a very substantial group of tubies who consider the
quality of residual noise to be more important than the absolute
amount of noise, which in turn has implications for the value added --
or subtracted -- from enjoyment of the music by negative feedback
circuits. These are clearly matters of taste, which require
psychological tools to evaluate and quantify. As long as a certain
class of engineer is frightened of, or dismissive of psychology, the
silicon slime is not likely to have a meeting of mind with the tubies.

Personally, I've given up bothering with the silicon slime. I just
enjoy my music, via 300B and EL34 and recently I took one of my 5881
amps out for a spin. Since the good, helpful engineers are actually in
the vast majority on RAT, it is a waste of time worrying about the
remnants of the silicon slime now that we have at last disposed of the
most disruptive of them.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 19, 5:03*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

What an excellent post.

It was sufficiently close to that such that your characterization
could be taken as accurate, except for what followed:

However, our view here at RAT (rest mercifully snipped)

a) you write only for yourself and your various alter-egos and sock-
puppets. Lose the "we", "our" and other collective pronouns unless you
clarify for whom you write and for whom you "view".

b) The initial characterization is only an excuse for you to propound
your lies, misrepresentations, egotistical rants and other ill-
supported anecdotes of doubtful veracity.

c) As before, when you can and care to prove _ANY_ of your rants based
on independently verifiable facts from independently verifiable
sources, you will - perhaps - be read *for* content rather than *with*
a mixture of pity and contempt.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Ian Iveson]

keithr wrote:

That must be some really good **** yer smokin' there boy

No, it's true, AFAICT, honestly. Look:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4116471.ece

Expecting consternation in the ranks, I've been trying to
find where philosophers hang out these days. I dimly recall
that some crucial aspect of the history of thought pivots on
the unicorn as an example of myth. But philosophers don't
seem to congregate any more. Perhaps they never did. Now it
may transpire that it was the philosophers, rather than the
unicorns, that were mythical.

It's a shame none of the reports seem aware of the problems
arising from the question "Is this a real unicorn?".

e.g. "It may look like a unicorn but the single-horned
animal at an Italian park is a young roe deer."

It may look like a UFO but actually this Martian saucer in
the sky is a small spacecraft.

Disappointingly no unicorn gene is involved. I wonder if the
existence of mermaids is now more, or less, likely.
Probability theory tells me it makes no difference, assuming
that meetings between unicorns and mermaids have never been
significant. Engineers will tell me they just don't care.
All the same, I feel more optimistic.

Elves, pixies, angels, sweetness and light, universal peace
and tranquility, sometime soon, maybe. It's not drugs. This
is just how I am, at a guess.

Ian

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 20, 9:01*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
keithr wrote:
That must be some really good **** yer smokin' there boy

No, it's true, AFAICT, honestly. Look:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4116471.ece

Expecting consternation in the ranks, I've been trying to
find where philosophers hang out these days. I dimly recall
that some crucial aspect of the history of thought pivots on
the unicorn as an example of myth. But philosophers don't
seem to congregate any more. Perhaps they never did. Now it
may transpire that it was the philosophers, rather than the
unicorns, that were mythical.

It's a shame none of the reports seem aware of the problems
arising from the question "Is this a real unicorn?".

e.g. "It may look like a unicorn but the single-horned
animal at an Italian park is a young roe deer."

It may look like a UFO but actually this Martian saucer in
the sky is a small spacecraft.

Disappointingly no unicorn gene is involved. I wonder if the
existence of mermaids is now more, or less, likely.
Probability theory tells me it makes no difference, assuming
that meetings between unicorns and mermaids have never been
significant. Engineers will tell me they just don't care.
All the same, I feel more optimistic.

Elves, pixies, angels, sweetness and light, universal peace
and tranquility, sometime soon, maybe. It's not drugs. This
is just how I am, at a guess.

Ian

The Unicorn Myth is well-developed and had little to do with
philosophy as much as mythology and an attempt to explain artifacts
that would be impossible otherwise.

http://www.begoths.com/html/images/art/unicorns1.jpg

http://www.hornsund.topworld.org/narwal.jpg

The Cloisters Museum in Washington Heights, NYC has an artifact
labeled as "Unicorn Horn" from the 11th Century...

A 19th Century curator relabeled it as a Narwal tusk.

Around which was built much mythology.

The single-horned red deer doesn't quite cut it...

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Ian Iveson]

Peter Wieck wrote:

No, it's true, AFAICT, honestly. Look:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4116471.ece

Expecting consternation in the ranks, I've been trying to
find where philosophers hang out these days. I dimly
recall
that some crucial aspect of the history of thought pivots
on
the unicorn as an example of myth. But philosophers don't
seem to congregate any more. Perhaps they never did. Now
it
may transpire that it was the philosophers, rather than
the
unicorns, that were mythical.

It's a shame none of the reports seem aware of the
problems
arising from the question "Is this a real unicorn?".

e.g. "It may look like a unicorn but the single-horned
animal at an Italian park is a young roe deer."

It may look like a UFO but actually this Martian saucer in
the sky is a small spacecraft.

Disappointingly no unicorn gene is involved. I wonder if
the
existence of mermaids is now more, or less, likely.
Probability theory tells me it makes no difference,
assuming
that meetings between unicorns and mermaids have never
been
significant. Engineers will tell me they just don't care.
All the same, I feel more optimistic.

Elves, pixies, angels, sweetness and light, universal
peace
and tranquillity, sometime soon, maybe. It's not drugs.
This
is just how I am, at a guess.

:The Unicorn Myth is well-developed and had little to do
with
hilosophy as much as mythology and an attempt to explain
artifacts
:that would be impossible otherwise.

http://www.begoths.com/html/images/art/unicorns1.jpg

http://www.hornsund.topworld.org/narwal.jpg

:The Cloisters Museum in Washington Heights, NYC has an
artifact
:labeled as "Unicorn Horn" from the 11th Century...

:A 19th Century curator relabeled it as a Narwal tusk.

:Around which was built much mythology.

:The single-horned red deer doesn't quite cut it...


What? Is mythology something practiced solely by
mythologists? I felt sure that philosophers, Bertrand
Russell for one, used the unicorn as an example of myth.
This was not because they had a particular interest in
unicorns, but because they were, and are, concerned about
how to distinguish myth from truth. "Do unicorns exist?"
makes quite a good undergraduate assignment. Possibly they
have been eclipsed by angels.

The convenient thing about unicorns is that nobody actually
ever believed in them. Unlike mermaids, flying saucers or
God. So students don't get themselves stuck up a naive
materialists' blind alley. Other relatively pure examples
might be Atlantis, or the Holy Grail.

A unicorn has only two...or possibly three...defining
features, AFAIK. It has one horn, and it is mythical. Maybe
it must be white, but I can find only circumstantial
evidence for that. The noble but highly-strung prancing
horse with a long twisted horn is a recent, maybe
illegitimate, popularisation.

So, for a simple bargain-basement realist, there is nothing
to say that the one-horned deer is not a unicorn, although
its colour may be a disappointment.

OTOH, for me, "real unicorn" is simply a contradiction in
terms. Nothing could possibly "cut it". There are lots of
other arguments, but that's the one I like the most.

Surely the museum exhibit was intended as a tongue-in-cheek
curiosity? A reminder of the fallibility of curators? Before
Americans lost their sense of irony.

Why doesn't OE mark your text as quotation? It makes it
awkward to respond to.

Ian

[Ian Iveson]

Nick Gorham wrote:

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier
can be better for high fidelity?


Depends on what definition of high fidelity you are
talking about. If its Peter Walkers, then maybe not. But
that doesn't worry all of us using, building and enjoying
music played (and slightly modified) by them.


Thanks, Nick. So there is some hope.

Are there alternative definitions of high fidelity? I accept
that it makes sense to ask of this system or that, "Is this
hi-fi?", rather like you may ask whether this or that act is
good. You may find that various systems are just as hi-fi as
each other, but in different ways, just like good acts are
not all the same. But when it comes to definition, I'm drawn
to "What is good is good, and let that be the end of the
matter.", to paraphrase, er, somebody.

Peter Walker was there at the end of the beginning, and the
beginning of the end. Together with RDH4 and a few other
activists, he set us on the road to The Krell. He listened
too, though, so he wasn't what I might call a naive
reproductionist. Did he really say that all good hi-fi
should sound the same?

I see elsewhere someone's into transformer coupling. That's
encouraging. Nice to see that history is still alive, just
in case we need to do a rip-up-and-retry sometime.

Naturally I would argue that, whether or not a modification
of the signal is involved, playing Tutti Frutti on a
Dansette is not a modification of the sound, but rather an
authentic presentation of the music. That's how it sounded,
mostly, when it first came out. Assuming the producer didn't
make the same kind of mistake as Spector with River Deep, it
was originally performed for Dansette and Living Room (or
whatever room Americans put their record players in).

cheers,

Ian

[Peter Wieck]

On Jun 23, 11:33*am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:

So, for a simple bargain-basement realist, there is nothing
to say that the one-horned deer is not a unicorn, although
its colour may be a disappointment.

OTOH, for me, "real unicorn" is simply a contradiction in
terms. Nothing could possibly "cut it". There are lots of
other arguments, but that's the one I like the most.

Save for deer have antlers - shed at the end of rutting season.
Unicorns have horns - a permanent fixture.

That is why a single-antlered red-deer cannot and will not ever 'cut
it'.

I prefer (and choose to believe) the Charles Addams version of events
in any case. A fellow Penn Grad and fellow Fine Arts major, writing of
grandfaloons and irony... .

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Eeyore]

Ian Iveson wrote:

Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can
be better for high fidelity?

For true *FIDELITY* ? Not a hope in hell.

For pleasant (to some) intentional colouration, yes, no question.

Graham

[tubegarden]

On Jun 23, 11:16�pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Ian Iveson wrote:
Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can
be better for high fidelity?

For true *FIDELITY* ? Not a hope in hell.

For pleasant (to some) intentional colouration, yes, no question.

Graham


Hi RATs!

I got a connection, today. Somehow, AT&T provides 3M Fiber
connectivity via the existing copper and it measures 1.25 meg download
and 0,135 upload ...

So, yes, I saw the Ronettes live in some mini-metropolis in southern
Minnesota. They were wonderful ... I said Hi to one of them and she
said Hi back ... it was better than getting Neil Sedeka's autograph at
the state fair ...

Now, a bit later, I have switched in two Heathkit HF-14 amps for my
somewhat stained P-P EL34 (triode via diode) amp.

The klipsch Heresy speakers have trudged thru the decades, and have
fresh midrange diaphragms and Nick McKinney era Lambda woofers ...

Just listened to the Sex music from the movie "10" ...

It is nicely compelling, whereas sex for a young Bo Derek was more
hardwired reproduction activity.

And making the guy start the record album from the beginning was just
reality TV, on film

Yes, nobody can win any argument about fidelity, but, we may each
enjoy whatever techo-trinkets pass our rock in the stream.

I like playing with tubed stuff, but, we hear whatever we can, any
media will devastate the original experience. But, not many, if any,
actually were there at the creation.

Each reproductive chain adds and subtracts. Us old guys just ignore
reality and enjoy what the music does for our imaginations.

Nothing can be gained from deciding which chain is best.

Which handcuffs are "best"?


This very tidy, the fingerprints are all MINE! pair of mono came from
Ebay. Mullard EL84s in one, Daystrom in the other. Swapping tubes
channel to channel only proves I am getting too old for the fun
physical parts of this past time ...


Happy Ears!
Al

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jul 2, 11:40Â*pm, tubegarden wrote:
On Jun 23, 11:16�pm, Eeyore
wrote:

Ian Iveson wrote:
Is there anyone left who believes that a valve amplifier can
be better for high fidelity?

For true *FIDELITY* ? Not a hope in hell.

For pleasant (to some) intentional colouration, yes, no question.

Graham

Hi RATs!

I got a connection, today. Somehow, AT&T provides 3M Fiber
connectivity via the existing copper and it measures 1.25 meg download
and 0,135 upload ...

So, yes, I saw the Ronettes live in some mini-metropolis in southern
Minnesota. They were wonderful ... I said Hi to one of them and she
said Hi back ... it was better than getting Neil Sedeka's autograph at
the state fair ...

Now, a bit later, I have switched in two Heathkit HF-14 amps for my
somewhat stained P-P EL34 (triode via diode) amp.

The klipsch Heresy speakers have trudged thru the decades, and have
fresh midrange diaphragms and Nick McKinney era Lambda woofers ...

Just listened to the Sex music from the movie "10" ...

It is nicely compelling, whereas sex for a young Bo Derek was more
hardwired reproduction activity.

And making the guy start the record album from the beginning was just
reality TV, on film

Yes, nobody can win any argument about fidelity, but, we may each
enjoy whatever techo-trinkets pass our rock in the stream.

I like playing with tubed stuff, but, we hear whatever we can, any
media will devastate the original experience. But, not many, if any,
actually were there at the creation.

Each reproductive chain adds and subtracts. Us old guys just ignore
reality and enjoy what the music does for our imaginations.

Nothing can be gained from deciding which chain is best.

Which handcuffs are "best"?

This very tidy, the fingerprints are all MINE! pair of mono came from
Ebay. Mullard EL84s in one, Daystrom in the other. Swapping tubes
channel to channel only proves I am getting too old for the fun
physical parts of this past time ...

Happy Ears!
Al

Aha! That you're back and as bolshie as ever, dear Al, give me
confidence that there is a god, just as Iveson promises in the
headline.

Andre Jute
Every year I grow older I become less heathen. I wonder if there is a
causal connection? -- Andre Jute: More Fings Mark Twain Never Said But
Shoulda

[Lord Valve]

Andre Jute wrote:

Every year I grow older I become less heathen. I wonder if there is a
causal connection? -- Andre Jute: More Fings Mark Twain Never Said But
Shoulda

My favorite:

"...there is no distinctly native American criminal class
save Congress." - Mark Twain

LV

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jul 3, 3:22*am, Lord Valve wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Every year I grow older I become less heathen. I wonder if there is a
causal connection? -- Andre Jute: More Fings Mark Twain Never Said But
Shoulda

My favorite:

"...there is no distinctly native American criminal class
save Congress." *- Mark Twain

LV

"Lawyers and other criminals" wrote a literary protege. Isn't that a
little overly cynical even for an American, I asked politely. God no,
she said, have you ever counted how many lawyers in Congress -- and,
after a pause, she added -- with ladies not their wives and with the
taxpayers' money.

Andre Jute
Not the only punster on the planet. Fortunately.

[tubegarden]

Hi RATs!

Yes, it all seems quite self evident. We listen to stuff and are so
happy or so bored we yell, sort of, at everyone in the Universe, sort
of, about how wonderful it is, or isn't.

I listened, in awe, to an Xtal AM radio rcvr in my yute, you should be
so blessed. One ear plug was all I needed ...

I heard Dick Driscoll and his Count Dracula Fan Club, after midnight
you know, and even voted for "Teen Angel" to be a hit, on first
hearing!

I had to go downstairs and dial the telephone, which was directly
connected, via switched copper lines, to the WDGY Studio.

Telephones used to sound almost like the person you were talking to,
but, it was cheap, about 5 or 6 bux a month, and they fixed everything
you could think of, for free.

Obviously, not enough humans had been processed by the Harvard Bidness
School, nor its graduates ...

now, my new AT&T connection is MUCH LOUDER, but, I never have any idea
who it is ...

or even if they are teasing me ... what a pile of Fiber Optic crap.


Fortune smiles in random patterns. We assume the pleasant stuff we are
experiencing is good and whole.

It is just the loudest the system could make it. Whether or not anyone
enjoyed it or even comprehended any of it is not important. What
matters is how loud it is delivered ... as if it matters, anymore.



We listen to CDs through old Heathkit amplifiers. Not because we are
right, but because this future is WRONG!

Wm. F. Buckley,Jr. said: "Every day, in every way, things get worse,
and worse."

He had the finest mind in the 17th century.

Sorry Bill, but, some of are not listening ...

Happy Ears!
Al