"Signal" wrote in message
...
There are some people who subscribe to the point of view that all
'competently designed' amplifiers are audibly inseperable. They do not
state this as an opinion, but rather assert it as fact.

To clarify, IMO, all comeptently designed amps, not driven to clipping, that
have been tested have not been shown to be audibly different from each
other.

I have a couple of questions for such individuals..

1) The implication is that there is a cut-off point in specification
and any amplifier meeting or exceeding said specification is deemed
sonically indistinguishable, as any sonic irregularities between them
would be below the threshold of human hearing. Please nominate a
couple of cheap amplifers which meet this criteria, when presented
with a suitable load.

I would nominate first A RECEIVER that I have not been able to tell apart
from my own Acoustat 120 watt amp. The Pioneer VSX1015-TX. purchase on the
net for $399.00.

Remember Fella's DBT with a Denesen amp? He was sure he would be able to
tell it form the other amp he tested (the name of which escapes me now) and
he failed.

2) Is there any doubt in the minds of such people that the nominated
amplifers will sound audibly different under controlled, double blind
listening conditions, to the most highly specified amplifiers
currently available - Halcro monoblocks?

I don't see anything in the SP measurements to make me believe it should
sound any different than any other SS amp with normal loads.

Do you have access to these amps? Maybe you could drop by Pinkerton's and
compare them in a DBT to his Krell.

as opposed to the all-competently-designed-amps-are-INsane believers...


GeoSynch

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Signal" wrote in message
...
There are some people who subscribe to the point of view that all
'competently designed' amplifiers are audibly inseperable. They do not
state this as an opinion, but rather assert it as fact.

To clarify, IMO, urrrggghh, greeeek, all comeptently designed amps,
gruunnnttt, not driven to clipping, that
urrrghhh, greeeeeek, grruunnnt, have been tested have not been shown to be
audibly different from each
other, urrghhh, greeeeeeekkkkk, gruuuuunnnnnnt.

Mikey apparently believes that the use of a double negative in the above
sentence will make him appear "sophisticated".

Give it up, Mikey. You're just plain dumb. You cannot hide the fact that you
are a mere amphibian, an evolutionary time-fossil, based on a pattern of
existence 1.9 billion years old: mere mimicry.

Many people cannot competently distinguish drastically flawed amps
from arguably excellent ones consistently. The fact is that when never
clipped and given semi-respectable bandpass and thd figures, the amp is
the least troublesome link in the chain in most cases.

Nonetheless, high end audio is like a finely made wrist watch, shotgun
or fountain pen: if you want excellence and are willing to pay for it
more power to you. I have a ridiculously expensive Mount Blanc fountain
pen: I can't economically justify owning it, but I do. It gives me
pleasure. I also own a lot of expensive pro mechanics and machinists
tools, electronic test equipment , a valve and slide trombone set of
concert quality, and a set of Italian skeet guns none of which get an
amount of use which justifies their "rent".

I worked hard for them. I like them. And I know many others feel the
same about their high end audio setup(s). Happiness is their only
justification.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Many people cannot competently distinguish drastically flawed amps
from arguably excellent ones consistently. The fact is that when never
clipped and given semi-respectable bandpass and thd figures, the amp is
the least troublesome link in the chain in most cases.

Nonetheless, high end audio is like a finely made wrist watch, shotgun
or fountain pen: if you want excellence and are willing to pay for it
more power to you. I have a ridiculously expensive Mount Blanc fountain
pen: I can't economically justify owning it, but I do. It gives me
pleasure. I also own a lot of expensive pro mechanics and machinists
tools, electronic test equipment , a valve and slide trombone set of
concert quality, and a set of Italian skeet guns none of which get an
amount of use which justifies their "rent".

I worked hard for them. I like them. And I know many others feel the
same about their high end audio setup(s). Happiness is their only
justification.

Very open-minded.
But I believe I actually hear differences. Very significant ones. Not in
every comparison, but many.
And some people cannot hear these things. There is no reason to assume that
everyone has a brain with equal powers of discrimination.

In most ways, I tend toward the utilitarian. 90% of my stuff is old Hafler
and Acoustat. I have a couple of Parasound HCA2200ii's. But there are audio
bigots who, having racks full of workaday quality sound reinforcement amps,
because they cannot hear the difference, proclaim the absurdity of what they
are not constructed to hear. It is, in the audio realm, the inferior
dictating to the superior.

My message to anyone reading is: do not listen to these people. On this
newsgroup, the principle advocates of dumbed-down audio are Arny Krueger and
his feeble minded sidekick, Mike McKelvy, aka . These
people have no other purpose in life than to spoil your fun. It inflates
their egoes to imagine themselves as audio debunkers.

The reason these people get a listen is because there is plenty of fraud in
audio. Unfortunately, Arny and his crew are like the French Terror; they
want to destroy everything they are not privileged by God to perceive. If
Arny were color-blind, he would seek to ban the use of pigments. And for
some reason, the feeble-minded Mike McKelvy has latched onto Arny. McKelvy
is to Arny as __________ is to Hitler. Fill in the blank yourself; it could
be Eichmann, Goebels, or any number of nazis that McKelvy has never heard
of, because he is dumb and ignorant of history. Indeed, for Mikey, happiness
is just a beer away.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Many people cannot competently distinguish drastically flawed amps
from arguably excellent ones consistently. The fact is that when never
clipped and given semi-respectable bandpass and thd figures, the amp is
the least troublesome link in the chain in most cases.

Nonetheless, high end audio is like a finely made wrist watch, shotgun
or fountain pen: if you want excellence and are willing to pay for it
more power to you. I have a ridiculously expensive Mount Blanc fountain
pen: I can't economically justify owning it, but I do. It gives me
pleasure. I also own a lot of expensive pro mechanics and machinists
tools, electronic test equipment , a valve and slide trombone set of
concert quality, and a set of Italian skeet guns none of which get an
amount of use which justifies their "rent".

I worked hard for them. I like them. And I know many others feel the
same about their high end audio setup(s). Happiness is their only
justification.

Very open-minded.
But I believe I actually hear differences. Very significant ones.

And maybe you do, but with a blind level matched comparison it's just
specualtion.

Not in
every comparison, but many.
And some people cannot hear these things. There is no reason to assume
that
everyone has a brain with equal powers of discrimination.


If irony killed.


In most ways, I tend toward the utilitarian. 90% of my stuff is old Hafler
and Acoustat. I have a couple of Parasound HCA2200ii's. But there are
audio
bigots who, having racks full of workaday quality sound reinforcement
amps,
because they cannot hear the difference, proclaim the absurdity of what
they
are not constructed to hear. It is, in the audio realm, the inferior
dictating to the superior.


Easly testable with a blind level matched comparison, you don't have any of
those though, do you Bob?

My message to anyone reading is: do not listen to these people. On this
newsgroup, the principle advocates of dumbed-down audio are Arny Krueger
and
his feeble minded sidekick, Mike McKelvy, aka . These
people have no other purpose in life than to spoil your fun. It inflates
their egoes to imagine themselves as audio debunkers.

Wrong as usual Bob. We like to offer the truth as a defense against fraud,
nobody is bound to follow what we say, just as they can ignore your
unscientifc gibberish.

The reason these people get a listen is because there is plenty of fraud
in
audio.

Which you help perpetuate.


Unfortunately, Arny and his crew are like the French Terror; they
want to destroy everything they are not privileged by God to perceive.

I'm an atheist Bob.

If
Arny were color-blind, he would seek to ban the use of pigments. And for
some reason, the feeble-minded Mike McKelvy has latched onto Arny. McKelvy
is to Arny as __________ is to Hitler. Fill in the blank yourself; it
could
be Eichmann, Goebels, or any number of nazis that McKelvy has never heard
of, because he is dumb and ignorant of history. Indeed, for Mikey,
happiness
is just a beer away.

Uh-oh Hitler references automatically lose your argument.

Not that there was any truth to it, but you knew that. That's why we make
fun of you Bob, because you are a liar and think that people believe you
have some insight, when in truth, you're just as full of **** as Middius.
Just as clueless about audio, too.

" wrote in message
link.net...

It's pointless to reproduce the mckelviphibian's posts, because it is simply
material plagiarized from Arny Krueger.
The mckelviphibian's primitive brain can mimic the sounds of the
krugersaurus, causing the krugersaurus to excrete coprolytes directly onto
the mckelviphibian.

This kind of mutually beneficial relationship between two organisms is known
as symbiosis. The krugersaurus utilizes the mckelviphibian as an expendable
ally, while the mckelviphibian, a coprophage, receives nourishment from the
excreted coprolytes.

To a human, an existence as a coprophage might seen unpleasant, or, at
least, unaesthetic. However, the mckelviphibian is well adapted to this
existence, even though it is itself the victim of helminth parasites.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Many people cannot competently distinguish drastically flawed amps
from arguably excellent ones consistently.

What proof is there of this assertion? Very small changes can be heard by
trained listeners.

The fact is that when never
clipped and given semi-respectable bandpass and thd figures, the amp is
the least troublesome link in the chain in most cases.

Agreed, the most troublesome is speakers.

Nonetheless, high end audio is like a finely made wrist watch, shotgun
or fountain pen: if you want excellence and are willing to pay for it
more power to you.

Those are all things with degrees of performance, most audio equipment is
able to pass a signal with no audible distortion and no perceptable
difference from any other similar piece of equipment.

I have a ridiculously expensive Mount Blanc fountain
pen: I can't economically justify owning it, but I do. It gives me
pleasure. I also own a lot of expensive pro mechanics and machinists
tools, electronic test equipment , a valve and slide trombone set of
concert quality, and a set of Italian skeet guns none of which get an
amount of use which justifies their "rent".

So, why can't audiophiles simply admit that it's about the staus and not the
sound of expensive gear?

I worked hard for them. I like them. And I know many others feel the
same about their high end audio setup(s). Happiness is their only
justification.

And it's a fine one, but saying it sounds bettter or ebven different is
easily testable.

" wrote in message
link.net...

[snip]

So, why can't audiophiles simply admit that it's about the staus

"staus" is not a word. It is the mistake of an inferior mckelviphibian mind.
[snip]

And it's a fine one, but saying it sounds bettter or ebven

"ebven" is not a word. It is the mistake of an inferior mckelviphibian mind.

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
Many people cannot competently distinguish drastically flawed amps
from arguably excellent ones consistently.

What proof is there of this assertion? Very small changes can be heard by
trained listeners.

The fact is that when never
clipped and given semi-respectable bandpass and thd figures, the amp is
the least troublesome link in the chain in most cases.

Agreed, the most troublesome is speakers.

Nonetheless, high end audio is like a finely made wrist watch, shotgun
or fountain pen: if you want excellence and are willing to pay for it
more power to you.

Those are all things with degrees of performance, most audio equipment is
able to pass a signal with no audible distortion and no perceptable
difference from any other similar piece of equipment.

I have a ridiculously expensive Mount Blanc fountain
pen: I can't economically justify owning it, but I do. It gives me
pleasure. I also own a lot of expensive pro mechanics and machinists
tools, electronic test equipment , a valve and slide trombone set of
concert quality, and a set of Italian skeet guns none of which get an
amount of use which justifies their "rent".

So, why can't audiophiles simply admit that it's about the staus and not
the sound of expensive gear?

I worked hard for them. I like them. And I know many others feel the
same about their high end audio setup(s). Happiness is their only
justification.

And it's a fine one, but saying it sounds bettter or ebven different is
easily testable.

" wrote in message
link.net...

And it's a fine one, but saying it sounds bettter or ebven different is
easily testable.


Translation, anyone?

Clyde Slick said:

And it's a fine one, but saying it sounds bettter or ebven different is
easily testable.

Translation, anyone?

"I was fined once, but I'm saying it easily sounds better than when I was
kicked eleven times in the testes."

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

..

To clarify, IMO, urrrggghh, greeeek, all comeptently designed amps,
gruunnnttt, not driven to clipping, that
urrrghhh, greeeeeek, grruunnnt, have been tested have not been shown to be
audibly different from each
other, urrghhh, greeeeeeekkkkk, gruuuuunnnnnnt.

Thank you for admitting that you are just another spaz.

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

.

To clarify, IMO, urrrggghh, greeeek, all comeptently designed amps,
gruunnnttt, not driven to clipping, that
urrrghhh, greeeeeek, grruunnnt, have been tested have not been shown to
be
audibly different from each
other, urrghhh, greeeeeeekkkkk, gruuuuunnnnnnt.

Thank you urrrghhh, greeeeeek, grruunnnt, for admitting that you are just
urrrghhh, greeeeeek, grruunnnt, another spaz. urrrghhh, greeeeeek,
grruunnnt,

What?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

.

To clarify, IMO, urrrggghh, greeeek, all comeptently designed amps,
gruunnnttt, not driven to clipping, that
urrrghhh, greeeeeek, grruunnnt, have been tested have not been shown to
be
audibly different from each
other, urrghhh, greeeeeeekkkkk, gruuuuunnnnnnt.

Thank you urrrghhh, greeeeeek, grruunnnt, for admitting that you are just
urrrghhh, greeeeeek, grruunnnt, another spaz. urrrghhh, greeeeeek,
grruunnnt,

What?

Exactly.

"Signal" wrote in message
...
There are some people who subscribe to the point of view that all
'competently designed' amplifiers are audibly inseperable. They do not
state this as an opinion, but rather assert it as fact.

I have a couple of questions for such individuals..

1) The implication is that there is a cut-off point in specification
and any amplifier meeting or exceeding said specification is deemed
sonically indistinguishable, as any sonic irregularities between them
would be below the threshold of human hearing. Please nominate a
couple of cheap amplifers which meet this criteria, when presented
with a suitable load.

2) Is there any doubt in the minds of such people that the nominated
amplifers will sound audibly different under controlled, double blind
listening conditions, to the most highly specified amplifiers
currently available - Halcro monoblocks?

I'm one such individual. I've never been able to tell the difference
between 2 amplifiers, unless the load causes a variance in frequency
response.

Norm Strong

wrote in message
...

"Signal" wrote in message
...
There are some people who subscribe to the point of view that all
'competently designed' amplifiers are audibly inseperable. They do not
state this as an opinion, but rather assert it as fact.

I have a couple of questions for such individuals..

1) The implication is that there is a cut-off point in specification
and any amplifier meeting or exceeding said specification is deemed
sonically indistinguishable, as any sonic irregularities between them
would be below the threshold of human hearing. Please nominate a
couple of cheap amplifers which meet this criteria, when presented
with a suitable load.

2) Is there any doubt in the minds of such people that the nominated
amplifers will sound audibly different under controlled, double blind
listening conditions, to the most highly specified amplifiers
currently available - Halcro monoblocks?

I'm one such individual. I've never been able to tell the difference
between 2 amplifiers, unless the load causes a variance in frequency
response.

Norm Strong

How would you rate the diversity of amps that you've heard?