[Arny Krueger]

"fathom" wrote in message

Stereophile's Michael Fremer (the Analog Coroner) gets his
grubbies on the NAD Master Series M3 integrated for a
major test.

So what does he do? Well, he wastes large portions of the
article babbling about the $175 NAD 3020, circa 1979. In
fact, every NAD test this rag ever does makes reference
to the 3020, because every disco-era audiophile once
owned one and has spent the last 25 years ignoring NAD
products except to periodically spooj over the 3020 like
it was their first glance of a bare tit. Well, maybe it
was.

The Coroner eventually gets around to describing the
current product, including some unusual features which he
totally ignores during the test. He says he did this
because he wants to use the M3 like most audiophiles
would. He then completely tosses this concept by using
the $2800 NAD with speakers costing $46k and $70k. How
****ing dumb is this? NOBODY IN THE WORLD is going to
hook this amp up to speakers like that - so let's do it
for the major cover story review.

How crazy is a $2.7K integrated stereo amp? Probably, about 10 times less
crazy than a $26K CD player, or $46-$70k speakers.

It would be interesting to know how many copies of equipment like this
actually gets sold for the stated asking prices. What are the margins?

Some people seem to be fascinated with the idea of ABX tests of audio gear.
It might be interesting to do an ABX test of a $2.7K stereo (oh, "dual
mono") integrated amp and a $0.089K stereo receiver. If ABX is as
inherently flawed as some people say, is there any
International-Standards-Organization-Compliant (e.g. BS 1116) test
methodology that would produce different results in the end?

BTW, why aren't Mirabel and Middius ranting and raving about BS 1116?
Probable answer: they can't get anybody from the EBU to give them the time
of day.

Back in the real world it would be highly counter-productive for the
supplier of the $2.7K amp or Stereophile to do even the slightest thing to
support an unbiased comparison test like this. They should do everything
they can to keep it from happening, or even be thought of.

Trolls like Mirabel and Middius are handmaidens of audio's
highly-commercialized high end. If they aren't getting stipends, I'd
support their getting them.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg grits its dental appendages in envy.

How crazy is a $2.7K integrated stereo amp? Probably, about 10 times less
crazy than a $26K CD player, or $46-$70k speakers.

Arnii, you don't have to remind us of your penury, your bitterness, and
your soul-suffocating class envy. We'll never forget as long the earth
keeps spinning.

Among humans, the usual antidote to the unquenched desire for more money
is to GET OFF YOUR ASS AND EARN SOME. But since you're less than human,
you wouldn't understand that.

I'll bet the worst embarrassment for you is when they pass the plate at
church and all you can fumble is some chewing gum wrappers and some old
P-chips.






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Peter Wieck]

"Commander" George M. Middius tool a page out of McCoy's coloring book
to bleat:

Arnii, you don't have to remind us of your penury, your bitterness, and
your soul-suffocating class envy. We'll never forget as long the earth
keeps spinning.

a) you are bleating only for yourself. No one else but McCoy and its
various puppets credit you in any way. Lose the "We", please as it
simply isn't so.
b) as you cannot even afford a Goodwill boombox (given that you never
discuss anything even remotely to do with audio, tubes or music as it
happens), you are the last one to be critical of penury.
c) Of course, you have learned your bitterness from your upbringing,
but you are a self-made fool. Living on a steady diet of Cheese Doodles
and diet Pepsi does tend to lead to irrational thought processes. There
are interventions available these days that might help you with that.
d) Keep in mind that when your parents (if any) die and/or you reach
18, the system will no longer support you and you will have to make
your own way in the world. That should be interesting.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"fathom" wrote in message

Stereophile's Michael Fremer (the Analog Coroner) gets his
grubbies on the NAD Master Series M3 integrated for a
major test.

So what does he do? Well, he wastes large portions of the
article babbling about the $175 NAD 3020, circa 1979. In
fact, every NAD test this rag ever does makes reference
to the 3020, because every disco-era audiophile once
owned one and has spent the last 25 years ignoring NAD
products except to periodically spooj over the 3020 like
it was their first glance of a bare tit. Well, maybe it
was.

The Coroner eventually gets around to describing the
current product, including some unusual features which he
totally ignores during the test. He says he did this
because he wants to use the M3 like most audiophiles
would. He then completely tosses this concept by using
the $2800 NAD with speakers costing $46k and $70k. How
****ing dumb is this? NOBODY IN THE WORLD is going to
hook this amp up to speakers like that - so let's do it
for the major cover story review.

How crazy is a $2.7K integrated stereo amp? Probably, about 10 times less
crazy than a $26K CD player, or $46-$70k speakers.

It's competitive with the Krell, the Audio Research CA 50, and the
Bryston B100 SST, to name three.

It would be interesting to know how many copies of equipment like this
actually gets sold for the stated asking prices. What are the margins?

Probably higher than for NAD's cheaper products.

Some people seem to be fascinated with the idea of ABX tests of audio gear.
It might be interesting to do an ABX test of a $2.7K stereo (oh, "dual
mono") integrated amp and a $0.089K stereo receiver.

The balance control on the remote would give it away.

Stephen

If ABX is as
inherently flawed as some people say, is there any
International-Standards-Organization-Compliant (e.g. BS 1116) test
methodology that would produce different results in the end?

BTW, why aren't Mirabel and Middius ranting and raving about BS 1116?
Probable answer: they can't get anybody from the EBU to give them the time
of day.

Back in the real world it would be highly counter-productive for the
supplier of the $2.7K amp or Stereophile to do even the slightest thing to
support an unbiased comparison test like this. They should do everything
they can to keep it from happening, or even be thought of.

Trolls like Mirabel and Middius are handmaidens of audio's
highly-commercialized high end. If they aren't getting stipends, I'd
support their getting them.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"fathom" wrote in message

Stereophile's Michael Fremer (the Analog Coroner) gets
his grubbies on the NAD Master Series M3 integrated for
a major test.

So what does he do? Well, he wastes large portions of
the article babbling about the $175 NAD 3020, circa
1979. In fact, every NAD test this rag ever does makes
reference to the 3020, because every disco-era
audiophile once owned one and has spent the last 25
years ignoring NAD products except to periodically
spooj over the 3020 like it was their first glance of a
bare tit. Well, maybe it was.

The Coroner eventually gets around to describing the
current product, including some unusual features which
he totally ignores during the test. He says he did this
because he wants to use the M3 like most audiophiles
would. He then completely tosses this concept by using
the $2800 NAD with speakers costing $46k and $70k. How
****ing dumb is this? NOBODY IN THE WORLD is going to
hook this amp up to speakers like that - so let's do it
for the major cover story review.

How crazy is a $2.7K integrated stereo amp? Probably,
about 10 times less crazy than a $26K CD player, or
$46-$70k speakers.

It's competitive with the Krell, the Audio Research CA
50, and the Bryston B100 SST, to name three.

In terms of sound quality, or alleged market segment?

It would be interesting to know how many copies of
equipment like this actually gets sold for the stated
asking prices. What are the margins?

Probably higher than for NAD's cheaper products.

Agreed.

Some people seem to be fascinated with the idea of ABX
tests of audio gear. It might be interesting to do an
ABX test of a $2.7K stereo (oh, "dual mono") integrated
amp and a $0.089K stereo receiver.

The balance control on the remote would give it away.

How would that be relevant to a bias-controlled listening test?

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg, realizing its punishment session is aborted, whines in
self-pity.

The balance control on the remote would give it away.

How would that be relevant to a bias-controlled listening test?

Arnii, nobody is stopping you from gouging out your eyeballs again. It's not
our fault the Hive is so efficient at implanting replacements every time you
do that.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"fathom" wrote in message

Stereophile's Michael Fremer (the Analog Coroner) gets
his grubbies on the NAD Master Series M3 integrated for
a major test.

So what does he do? Well, he wastes large portions of
the article babbling about the $175 NAD 3020, circa
1979. In fact, every NAD test this rag ever does makes
reference to the 3020, because every disco-era
audiophile once owned one and has spent the last 25
years ignoring NAD products except to periodically
spooj over the 3020 like it was their first glance of a
bare tit. Well, maybe it was.

The Coroner eventually gets around to describing the
current product, including some unusual features which
he totally ignores during the test. He says he did this
because he wants to use the M3 like most audiophiles
would. He then completely tosses this concept by using
the $2800 NAD with speakers costing $46k and $70k. How
****ing dumb is this? NOBODY IN THE WORLD is going to
hook this amp up to speakers like that - so let's do it
for the major cover story review.

How crazy is a $2.7K integrated stereo amp? Probably,
about 10 times less crazy than a $26K CD player, or
$46-$70k speakers.

It's competitive with the Krell, the Audio Research CA
50, and the Bryston B100 SST, to name three.

In terms of sound quality, or alleged market segment?

Market, and it's not "alleged," they're all sold in high-end audio
salons. Shouldn't it be sound quality that's "alleged"? ;-)

I've only heard the ARC in casual conditions. I did like NAD's previous
high-end integrated (the Danish designed one) with Martin-Logans.

It would be interesting to know how many copies of
equipment like this actually gets sold for the stated
asking prices. What are the margins?

Probably higher than for NAD's cheaper products.

Agreed.

Some people seem to be fascinated with the idea of ABX
tests of audio gear. It might be interesting to do an
ABX test of a $2.7K stereo (oh, "dual mono") integrated
amp and a $0.089K stereo receiver.

The balance control on the remote would give it away.

How would that be relevant to a bias-controlled listening test?

It would be a giveaway for a test involving user-controlled balance
controls.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message


The balance control on the remote would give it away.

How would that be relevant to a bias-controlled
listening test?

It would be a giveaway for a test involving
user-controlled balance controls.

You're really reaching, aren't you Stephen?

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message


The balance control on the remote would give it away.

How would that be relevant to a bias-controlled
listening test?

It would be a giveaway for a test involving
user-controlled balance controls.

You're really reaching, aren't you Stephen?

No, being specific.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

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

Stereophile's Michael Fremer (the Analog Coroner) gets
his grubbies on the NAD Master Series M3 integrated for
a major test.

So what does he do? Well, he wastes large portions of
the article babbling about the $175 NAD 3020, circa
1979. In fact, every NAD test this rag ever does makes
reference to the 3020, because every disco-era
audiophile once owned one and has spent the last 25
years ignoring NAD products except to periodically
spooj over the 3020 like it was their first glance of a
bare tit. Well, maybe it was.

The Coroner eventually gets around to describing the
current product, including some unusual features which
he totally ignores during the test. He says he did this
because he wants to use the M3 like most audiophiles
would. He then completely tosses this concept by using
the $2800 NAD with speakers costing $46k and $70k. How
****ing dumb is this? NOBODY IN THE WORLD is going to
hook this amp up to speakers like that - so let's do it
for the major cover story review.

How crazy is a $2.7K integrated stereo amp? Probably,
about 10 times less crazy than a $26K CD player, or
$46-$70k speakers.

It would be interesting to know how many copies of
equipment like this actually gets sold for the stated
asking prices. What are the margins?

For the saloons or the manufacturer?

Both or either?