Paul said:

"Marc Phillips" emitted :

This Scott 299B is making me crazy.

How so?

It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it starts
making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing. I'd get
into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Boon

Marc Phillips wrote:
...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Too bad no one ever told you that what you had was not a "jewel" but
rather a commodity product low end integrated amp on the cusp of
turning 40 years old. What??? Someone _did_ tell you??? And you were
too arrogant to listen??? What a surprise! ;-)

Marc Phillips wrote:

Paul said:

"Marc Phillips" emitted :

This Scott 299B is making me crazy.

How so?

It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it starts
making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing. I'd get
into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)

Graham

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more modern?

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more modern?

Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?

Boon

Pooh Bear said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Paul said:

"Marc Phillips" emitted :

This Scott 299B is making me crazy.

How so?

It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
starts
making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing. I'd
get
into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)


Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still there,
and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm going to
grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions, and
doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.

I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too. Something like
a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55. That
Arny...what an audio genius.

Boon

Richard Malesweski said:

Marc Phillips wrote:
...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Too bad no one ever told you that what you had was not a "jewel" but
rather a commodity product low end integrated amp on the cusp of
turning 40 years old. What??? Someone _did_ tell you??? And you were
too arrogant to listen??? What a surprise! ;-)

Actually, you're completely off the mark. But thanks for assuming and making
yourself look stupid again.

Boon

Good ol' Porky, just as stupid as ever:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Richard Malesweski said:

You are _so_ predictable, Porky.....I baited the hook a few days before
I started posting on RAO again and I was waiting to see how long it
would take you to starting squawking "Richard Malesweski" again. You
need to learn something about screen names, numbnuts. :-))

snip

Actually, you're completely off the mark.

"completely off the mark"?
Let's see, I wrote:

not a jewel

I think you just admitted that yourself.

commodity product

That's exactly what it was when it was new.

low end integrated amp

It was near the bottom of the Scott line at the time.

on the cusp of turning 40 years old.

Care to differ?

Someone did tell you

I remember Arny telling you that the Scott tube integrated amps were
designs heavily compromised by cost, size and weight constraints.

And you were too arrogant to listen

Perhaps you would prefer to substitute another word for "arrogant"?
"Stupid", "ignorant" and "uninformed" come quickly to mind. ;-)

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Paul said:

"Marc Phillips" emitted :

This Scott 299B is making me crazy.

How so?

It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
starts
making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing.
I'd
get
into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)


Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still
there,
and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm
going to
grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions,
and
doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.

I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too. Something
like
a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55.
That
Arny...what an audio genius.

Boon

I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.

Clyde Slick said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Paul said:

"Marc Phillips" emitted :

This Scott 299B is making me crazy.

How so?

It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
starts
making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing.
I'd
get
into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)


Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still
there,
and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm
going to
grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions,
and
doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.

I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too. Something
like
a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55.
That
Arny...what an audio genius.

Boon

I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.

It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott around.
I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.

I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.

Boon

Richard Malesweski said:

Good ol' Porky, just as stupid as ever:

Marc Phillips wrote:
Richard Malesweski said:

You are _so_ predictable, Porky.....I baited the hook a few days before
I started posting on RAO again and I was waiting to see how long it
would take you to starting squawking "Richard Malesweski" again.

That's a victory? I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates you.

You
need to learn something about screen names, numbnuts. :-))

Like what? What could you possibly teach that I don't already know?


snip

Actually, you're completely off the mark.

"completely off the mark"?
Let's see, I wrote:

not a jewel

I think you just admitted that yourself.

You "think"? Sorry, but perhaps you should read the rest of the thread before
commenting. Then you might just figure out how you missed the mark.


commodity product

That's exactly what it was when it was new.

Yes, when it was new. But I remember rubbing your nose in the fact that this
is not a stock 299B. Hell, we were talking about the LK-48 back then, a
completely different amp. You do need to catch up.


low end integrated amp

It was near the bottom of the Scott line at the time.

Yes, a stock model certainly was.


on the cusp of turning 40 years old.

Care to differ?

Yes. It's 41 years old.


Someone did tell you

I remember Arny telling you that the Scott tube integrated amps were
designs heavily compromised by cost, size and weight constraints.

Stock examples, perhaps.


And you were too arrogant to listen

To what? Arny's comments on a different amplifier?

Perhaps you would prefer to substitute another word for "arrogant"?
"Stupid", "ignorant" and "uninformed" come quickly to mind. ;-)

Yes. Although I hate to resort to a IKYABWAI here, it is clear that you were
basing your comments on incorrect information. Your comments referred to a
stock LK-48, and what I have is a heavily modified 299B. Now spin away, little
Internet monkey. Tell us all how you're not ignorant, arrogant, stupid, and
uninformed.

Boon

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more
modern?

Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?

If you're gonna do it, why not do it right?

I remember the 299B from the days of. It was a mid-fi integrated amp then,
so how can it get better simply by being old?

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more
modern?

Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?

If you're gonna do it, why not do it right?

I remember the 299B from the days of. It was a mid-fi integrated amp then,
so how can it get better simply by being old?

New, larger transformers, for one. But I'd like to see you admit to a tube amp
"done right" first before telling you what else I had modified.

Boon

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Clyde Slick said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Paul said:

"Marc Phillips" emitted :

This Scott 299B is making me crazy.

How so?

It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
starts
making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing.
I'd
get
into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)


Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still
there,
and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm
going to
grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions,
and
doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.

I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too. Something

like
a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55.
That
Arny...what an audio genius.

Boon

I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.

It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott
around.
I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.

I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.

Boon







Have you considered a step up transformer?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more
modern?

Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?

If you're gonna do it, why not do it right?

I remember the 299B from the days of. It was a mid-fi integrated amp
then, so how can it get better simply by being old?

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

shoulds bought a Mcintosh

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more modern?



Something like these Chinese Amps?
http://www.diyhifisupply.com/diyhs_ladyday.htm

Certainly can't complain about the price but are they any better?

Regards TT

Clyde Slick said:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Marc Phillips" wrote in message

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


...I'm going back to Naim. This Scott 299B is making me crazy.


Perhaps something with fire bottles that is a bit newer and more
modern?

Are you actually recommending that I buy a newer tube amplifier?

If you're gonna do it, why not do it right?

I remember the 299B from the days of. It was a mid-fi integrated amp
then, so how can it get better simply by being old?

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Agreed.

Boon

S888Wheel said:

From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Clyde Slick said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear said:

Marc Phillips wrote:

Paul said:

"Marc Phillips" emitted :

This Scott 299B is making me crazy.

How so?

It's been doing great on CD, but it's way too noisy on phono. And it
starts
making weird sounds and smells after more than two hours of playing.
I'd
get
into more detail, but the assholes are coming.

Sounds like a typical tube amp to me. ;-)


Well, a forty-three-year-old one, anyway. The sound quality is still
there,
and it's not broken. It's just not a "daily driver." That's why I'm
going to
grab some more Naim gear...that stuff never breaks, never malfunctions,
and
doesn't sound like the usual SS dreck.

I'll probably take Arny's advice and buy another tube amp, too.
Something

like
a Manley Stingray, or an Audiomat Arpege, or an Audio Research VSi-55.
That
Arny...what an audio genius.

Boon

I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.

It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott
around.
I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.

I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.

Boon







Have you considered a step up transformer?

Got one. The problem is that if I use it, the output is way too high and
becomes outrageously distorted. If I bypass the outboard phono stage with the
step-up, only one configuration approaches reasonable sound, which I'm sure is
the correct setting. The problem is that there's too much tube rush, and the
overall sound quality is a step backwards from where I was last year. The bass
is a bit too mushy, and the dynamics are a bit too congested. What makes it
frustrating is that the line stage is pretty damned good.

The guy who sold it to me raved about the phono stage, but he uses an MM
cartridge. He seemed unsure about how my Koetsu would sound and had to check
with his tech to see if it would work okay. For the most part it does, but I'm
used to better.

Boon

Richard Malesweski said:

Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:

I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates
you.

Irritates me? Au contraire, mon petit porc, it merely serves as a constant
reminder of your abject stupidity. I have watched with great amusement as you
have become utterly convinced that I was Doug Haugen (those emails are still
archived, Porky) and, later, Richard Malesweski. You have also speculated
that
I was Arny, McCarty and Bret (aka Annika1980). You, in short, are a clueless
moron. That's why "George M. Middius" likes you; if you were smarter, you
would
be a threat to him and you would have to go the way of Sanders, Singh and
others.

Let me ask you a question, and I must warn you that every Internet geek in the
world will answer it wrong. Do you think that people on Usenet admire you, or
are impressed with you and your knowledge? Or do you think people here pity
you, or ignore you, or think you're pathetic? Now, you need to answer
honestly, without regard to the front you're putting on in front of your
imaginary audience. Answering "I don't care what people think" will not
suffice, because that is always an indication that you do care, Lot'S.

Here's your reality check, dude. I don't care who you are. I haven't for a
really long time. That's the truth. You annoyed me when I tried to ignore you
and you kept nipping at my heels. But when I faced you, your false bravado
withered, and you ****ed yourself like any other mangy stray dog would. I've
pretty much grown indifferent to your VERY occasional presence here. If RAO
has improved in any way over the last year or so, it is in the way that the
anonymous Usenet assholes have been weeded out. You're a bit of a dinosaur
these days, and a very small one at that.

The sad thing is that I happen to know that you're pretty knowledgeable about
audio, and you could really contribute to the group. But you've ****ed
yourself, and on the few occasions you do say something about audio, no one
responds, perhaps because quite a few people have killfiled you. You're
posting in a vacuum.

I invite you to shed your anonymity and contribute to the group beyond your
usual personal attacks and trolls. It might be more fun than your current
status as an obnoxious geek.

Boon

Richard Malesweski said:

Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:

I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates
you.

Irritates me? Au contraire, mon petit porc, it merely serves as a constant
reminder of your abject stupidity. I have watched with great amusement as you
have become utterly convinced that I was Doug Haugen (those emails are still
archived, Porky) and, later, Richard Malesweski. You have also speculated
that
I was Arny, McCarty and Bret (aka Annika1980). You, in short, are a clueless
moron. That's why "George M. Middius" likes you; if you were smarter, you
would
be a threat to him and you would have to go the way of Sanders, Singh and
others.

Let me ask you a question, and I must warn you that every Internet geek in the
world will answer it wrong. Do you think that people on Usenet admire you, or
are impressed with you and your knowledge? Or do you think people here pity
you, or ignore you, or think you're pathetic? Now, you need to answer
honestly, without regard to the front you're putting on in front of your
imaginary audience. Answering "I don't care what people think" will not
suffice, because that is always an indication that you do care, Lot'S.

Here's your reality check, dude. I don't care who you are. I haven't for a
really long time. That's the truth. You annoyed me when I tried to ignore you
and you kept nipping at my heels. But when I faced you, your false bravado
withered, and you ****ed yourself like any other mangy stray dog would. I've
pretty much grown indifferent to your VERY occasional presence here. If RAO
has improved in any way over the last year or so, it is in the way that the
anonymous Usenet assholes have been weeded out. You're a bit of a dinosaur
these days, and a very small one at that.

The sad thing is that I happen to know that you're pretty knowledgeable about
audio, and you could really contribute to the group. But you've ****ed
yourself, and on the few occasions you do say something about audio, no one
responds, perhaps because quite a few people have killfiled you. You're
posting in a vacuum.

I invite you to shed your anonymity and contribute to the group beyond your
usual personal attacks and trolls. It might be more fun than your current
status as an obnoxious geek.

Boon

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was what, a pair
of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or Garrard rim drive changer
or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally primitive Shure or Pickering
cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

Subject: **** tubes...
From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

The stupidity continues:



Richard Malesweski said:

Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:

I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates
you.

snip

Here's your reality check, dude.

Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage in
actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like (that
would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.

Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I hope
you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band of
pathetic assholes is repugnant.

**** you and your band of thugs.

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/11/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

The funny thing is, these guys are wildly inconsistent. They will easily
dismiss the source components (i.e., turntable/cartridge) and (for the most
part)speakers of the day, but they wax nostalgic about the electronics. Why??

As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify first hand
that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

Richard Malesweski said:

Subject: **** tubes...
From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

The stupidity continues:



Richard Malesweski said:

Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:

I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it irritates
you.

snip

Here's your reality check, dude.

Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage in
actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
(that
would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.

Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I hope
you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band of
pathetic assholes is repugnant.

**** you and your band of thugs.

If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
Arny," then so be it. It's your life.

Boon

Arny said:

"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

Krooglish!

Boon

Richard Malesweski said:

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/11/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

The funny thing is, these guys are wildly inconsistent. They will easily
dismiss the source components (i.e., turntable/cartridge) and (for the most
part)speakers of the day, but they wax nostalgic about the electronics. Why??

As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify first hand
that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

We're a band of thugs and we want you to blow your brains out in frustration.

Boon

Subject: **** tubes...
From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 10:02 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Richard Malesweski said:

Subject: **** tubes...
From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

The stupidity continues:



Richard Malesweski said:

Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:

I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
irritates
you.

snip

Here's your reality check, dude.

Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage in
actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
(that
would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.

Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I hope
you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band of
pathetic assholes is repugnant.

**** you and your band of thugs.

If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
Arny," then so be it. It's your life.

By "band of thugs", I mean you, the obviously pshychotic person posting as
"George M. Middius", the rather sad Art Sackman, Paul Dormer, the compleat
asshole posting as "The Devil", the jerkoff posting as "Leon North", et al.

Is that "everyone in the world except [me] and Arny"? Not hardly, IMO, but I'm
not nearly as subject to "group think" as are you, mon petit porc.

And, yes, it is _my_ life. And I enjoy it for that.

"Torresists" wrote in message
...


Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was what, a
pair
of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or Garrard rim drive
changer
or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally primitive Shure or Pickering
cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

The phono cartridges were not.
The amplification was.
The speakers were not quite, and more limited in choice.
The source material (lp's, especially classical) were

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.


True that my ears were better then, but still, that also
holds for you. I am not quite as old as you are.

"Torresists" wrote in message
...
Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/11/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

The funny thing is, these guys are wildly inconsistent. They will easily
dismiss the source components (i.e., turntable/cartridge) and (for the
most
part)speakers of the day, but they wax nostalgic about the electronics.
Why??

As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify first
hand
that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

I didn't like Dyna, either.

"Torresists" wrote in message
...
Subject: **** tubes...
From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

The stupidity continues:



Richard Malesweski said:

Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:

I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
irritates
you.

snip

Here's your reality check, dude.

Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage
in
actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
(that
would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.

Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I
hope
you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band
of
pathetic assholes is repugnant.

**** you and your band of thugs.

Go listen to some music, maybe it will
cheer you up some.

Richard Malesweski said:

Subject: **** tubes...
From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 10:02 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Richard Malesweski said:

Subject: **** tubes...
From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/11/2004 9:09 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

The stupidity continues:



Richard Malesweski said:

Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:

I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
irritates
you.

snip

Here's your reality check, dude.

Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage in
actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
(that
would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.

Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I
hope
you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band of
pathetic assholes is repugnant.

**** you and your band of thugs.

If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
Arny," then so be it. It's your life.

By "band of thugs", I mean you, the obviously pshychotic person posting as
"George M. Middius"

Yeah, he's obviously "pshychotic." I mean, you're a licensed pshychiatrist,
right?

, the rather sad Art Sackman

Rather sad? I know Art personally, and I'd say he's rather jovial, outgoing,
and funny. He has a nice career, and a good woman to love. Not to mention a
ton of really nifty vintage gear.

, Paul Dormer

I guess you didn't come up with a description for Paul because you couldn't
think of anything, other than the fact that he despises Arny, too. In your
world, hating pedophiles is obviously a bad thing.

, the compleat
asshole posting as "The Devil"

He's rich, talented, famous...no wonder you hate him.


, the jerkoff posting as "Leon North"

Who utterly proved that Arny faked the e-mail concerning the child
pornography...again, no wonder you hate him. He exposed your hero...or is it
just your business partner?

, et al.

Translation: everyone else in the world except for you and Arny. And maybe
McKelvy. Oh, and Howard. And your chair. And your remote control. And your
ball and paddle.


Is that "everyone in the world except [me] and Arny"? Not hardly, IMO, but
I'm
not nearly as subject to "group think" as are you, mon petit porc.

I think it may be as simple as this: Arny gave you a good deal on a computer,
and you find it difficult to be disloyal. I can dig that. That seems to be
the case with most Kroo-pologists...they battle us, but can't specifically
defend why they don't think Arny is a piece of ****. Most say something about
his helpfulness and expertise, which is something a satisfied customer would
say. A customer, that is, that got the special "RAO" price.


And, yes, it is _my_ life. And I enjoy it for that.

Yes, it is clear that anonymously attacking strangers on the Internet is very
satisfying for you. That, and defending lying, hypocritical pedophiles.

Boon

"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 12/11/2004 9:38 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Torresists" wrote in message

Subject: **** tubes...
From: "Clyde Slick" :

snip

Mid fi then was a hell of a lot better than mid fi now.

Do you really believe that? Circa 1963, the best of "mid-fi" was
what, a pair of AR-2 variants or some KLH equivalent , a Dual or
Garrard rim drive changer or _maybe_ an AR-XA fitted with a brutally
primitive Shure or Pickering cartridge. All connected to Dyna, Scott
or Fisher tube electronics.

That's "a hell of a lot better" than now?

It is, to people who *hear* via nostalgia.

The funny thing is, these guys are wildly inconsistent.

Common among people like them who allegedly *think* with their buttholes.

They will
easily dismiss the source components (i.e., turntable/cartridge) and
(for the most part)speakers of the day, but they wax nostalgic about
the electronics. Why??

It's how their gurus, the guy down at the corner audio store, or fave
golden-eared reviewer, trained them.

As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify
first hand that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

Nostalgia, lies and bad training, intentionally administered by the high end
industry to relieve them of their cash while not provided added value.

Subject: **** tubes...
From: (Marc Phillips)
Date: 12/12/2004 12:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

A glimpse into the small, twisted "mind" of a weak-minded fat **** from
California:

Richard Malesweski said:
Richard Malesweski said:
Richard Malesweski said:

Marc "Porky" Phillips belched:

I know you aren't Malesweski, you know that I know, and yet
you haven't yet grasped the idea that I call you that because it
irritates
you.

Thanks for demonstrating your stupidity, Porky. Keep on keepin' on!

snip

Here's your reality check, dude.

Here's _your_ reality check, Porky: you have thrown in with an obvious
psychotic ("George M. Middius") , a choir of thugs, and a few blatant
"anonymous Usenet assholes" (e.g., "Leon North"?? PUH-leeze!!) to engage
in
actual criminal behavior in order to try to drive someone you do not like
(that
would be Arny Krueger) off this public forum.

Do I care what you and your band of thugs thinks of me? Indeed, I do! I
hope
you dislike me; it confirms my self worth. To cozy up to your slimy band
of
pathetic assholes is repugnant.

**** you and your band of thugs.

If by "band of thugs" you mean "everyone else in the world except you and
Arny," then so be it. It's your life.

By "band of thugs", I mean you, the obviously pshychotic person posting as
"George M. Middius"

Yeah, he's obviously "pshychotic."

Yes, "he" is. Perhaps your former RAO buds Sanders and Singh would like to
weigh in on this subject?

I mean, you're a licensed pshychiatrist,
right?

Just as much as you are, Porky. Yet you can diagnose "pedophila" but I can't
point out obviously psychotic behavior?

, the rather sad Art Sackman

Rather sad? I know Art personally, and I'd say he's rather jovial, outgoing,
and funny. He has a nice career, and a good woman to love. Not to mention a
ton of really nifty vintage gear.

He seems a sad, placeboized putz who lives in the past. And weak enough to go
along with the "pedophila" hoax.

, Paul Dormer

I guess you didn't come up with a description for Paul because you couldn't
think of anything, other than the fact that he despises Arny, too. In your
world, hating pedophiles is obviously a bad thing.

Dormer's bizarre, hate driven behavior predates the "pedophilia" hoax, Porky.
Start telling more believable lies.

, the compleat
asshole posting as "The Devil"

He's rich, talented, famous.

Or so he postures. I think he is the UK version of "George M. Middius" and I
don't believe a word he posts.



, the jerkoff posting as "Leon North"

Who utterly proved that Arny faked the e-mail concerning the child
pornography.

"Leon North" proved _nothing_ save that "he" is an arrogant, posturing gasbag.

, et al.

Translation: everyone else in the world except for you and Arny. And maybe
McKelvy. Oh, and Howard.

"Everyone else in the world"? Try _no one_ else in the world except you and
your little band of inept, wannabe thugs.


I think it may be as simple as this: Arny gave you a good deal on a
computer,


Good grief, are you REALLY this stupid??

Yeah, I guess you probably are. :-(

On 11 Dec 2004 22:50:05 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.

It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott around.
I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.

I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.

Boon

Then it really isn't "**** tubes", now is it? I'll bet that you
wouldn't be all that impressed with my Denon receiver either.

Also, sounds like a simple issue with your transformer/amp. Just to
satisfy your (and my) curiousity, you should probably try a few more
just to see if it's just a simple mismatch situation.

"Arny Krueger" said:

As a former owner (long ago) of some Dyna tube gear, I can testify
first hand that they were and are crap. What's the deal, guys?

Nostalgia, lies and bad training, intentionally administered by the high end
industry to relieve them of their cash while not provided added value.

Oh, that evil High End Industry again! (capitalization mine)

Assuming for just one moment that there actually *is* something like a
High End Industry (HEI!) , I still fail to see the relevance to
someone liking a 40-year old tube amplifier.

How is the HEI benefiting from that?

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

(Marc Phillips) said:

But, as I've said before, my adventures with vintage sound is nothing more than
a sidebar. I have a Michell Orbe SE, an SME V arm, and a Koetsu Rosewood
cartridge, and no vintage amp short of a Marantz 7 and 8 is going to do that
kind of setup justice. The Scott amp really cost me nothing to get...I traded
it for an amp I was going to get rid of anyway. I have many friends who are
completely into vintage audio, and I wanted to experiment around and see what
it was like. For the most part it's a lot of fun. But it's also the
equivalent of buying an old classic car and restoring it...it's fun to take out
on weekends, but you don't want to drive it to work every day.

I do.......but that's a different story altogether.
I think you should get a good SS MC preamp, maybe also a SS RIAA
correction amp, and go from there.
Your source probably is too delicate to be handled by a simple
(vintage) tube + step-up transformer combination.

You'd definitely benefit from a tube preamp, I think.

Too bad you're not into DIY, I have several good designs for you to
try.......

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

dave said:

On 11 Dec 2004 22:50:05 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

I'll sell you a Scott that has no problems.

It doesn't really have any problems. It just isn't compatible with my
cartridge. Like I said, CD sounds fine through it. If I had a MM cartridge
lying around, I bet it'd sound just fine. I'm going to keep the Scott
around.
I did just get a Naim NAIT 5i on loan while I look around a bit.

I'd sell it to you, but I know you're trying to streamline your collection.

Boon

Then it really isn't "**** tubes", now is it? I'll bet that you
wouldn't be all that impressed with my Denon receiver either.

Oh, it's definitely not "**** tubes." That was a joke. I still prefer the
sound of tube amplifiers to solid state. But with all of the experimenting
I've been doing over the last couple of years, I'm beginning to think that the
best sound I've ever had with my system is with Naim electronics in it. And I
have used a couple of more modern tube amps in my system, too.

I am getting a chance to borrow a Rogue Audio Tempest Magnum, though. At the
same time, Naim is getting ready to introduce a "super" integrated, and
something tells me that one of those, coupled with a HiCap power supply, will
be the answer for now.


Also, sounds like a simple issue with your transformer/amp. Just to
satisfy your (and my) curiousity, you should probably try a few more
just to see if it's just a simple mismatch situation.

A few more what? Amps, or configurations? I've done both so far. Like I've
said, the sound isn't bad, just not as good as I'm used to.

Boon