[[email protected]]

hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?

[Robert Morein]

wrote in message
...

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

Try asking the question in english, baba-dickhead.

[Trevor Wilson]

wrote in message
ups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


**Replace it with a Rotel.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[paul packer]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:31:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
oups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


**Replace it with a Rotel.

Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485
receiver and it sounds brilliant--better than the several budget
Rotels I've had.

I'd ask the OP why he feels the need for better compontents. What does
he feel the sound is lacking?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

I have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better
parts.

Why?

any suggestion?

Replacing parts in an amplifier is not like moving furniture around. If you
don't know what to do, then first you should find out what to do on your
own. Do you even know the slightest thing about how the various parts in an
amplifier contribute to sound quality?

Do you know that the amplifier is adversly affecting sound quality, as it
sits?

This amp is only 2 X 37 channel.

What's the real problem? Not enough power?

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

The number one modification for inexpensive amps is to bypass the input
coupling capacitors. Inspect them. IF THEY ARE ELECTROLYTICS, bypass them
with 0.1 uf polypropylene capacitors made by Wima, a German company.

The Krooborg has declared that no such mods are needed. Nor are they
desirable or feasible, says Arnii. Who are you to contradict ****-for-Brains,
Robert?




--

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

[George M. Middius]

Robert said:

The Krooborg has declared that no such mods are needed. Nor are they
desirable or feasible, says Arnii. Who are you to contradict
****-for-Brains, Robert?

George,
I offer my most obsequious, scraping apologies for the transgression.
Perhaps I should have allowed Bwian's answer to remain unsullied.

Bwian got excited when he said "dick" and "head" together.





--

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

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:31:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


**Replace it with a Rotel.

Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485

**BZZZZT! How long has the RX-485 been identical to a Rotel?
How relevant is it to compare a Rotel to a Yamaha, when using headphones if
the vast majority of people listen via speakers?


receiver and it sounds brilliant--better than the several budget
Rotels I've had.

I'd ask the OP why he feels the need for better compontents. What does
he feel the sound is lacking?

**He probably uses speakers. Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[paul packer]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:42:09 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:31:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


**Replace it with a Rotel.

Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485

**BZZZZT! How long has the RX-485 been identical to a Rotel?
How relevant is it to compare a Rotel to a Yamaha, when using headphones if
the vast majority of people listen via speakers?


receiver and it sounds brilliant--better than the several budget
Rotels I've had.

I'd ask the OP why he feels the need for better compontents. What does
he feel the sound is lacking?

**He probably uses speakers. Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads.

Says you and how many others? I cite the following on the RX-485:

"One company that does make high-current receivers for those on a
tight budget is Yamaha. Rated at 65w/ch continuously into 8 ohms, that
power goes up to 70w/ch for 6 ohm loads like the Mini-Reference. And
the dynamic power output figures really show greater
capabilities--into 8/6/4/2 ohms respectively, IHF rated dynamic power
is 96/115/135/150 watts/ch (and all these are full 20hz-20Khz
bandwidth ratings, unlike the cheating I've seen some companies do by
only measuring their amplifiers driving a 40hz+ signal). This sort of
output, with power going up into lower loads, is a characteristic of a
good design with a good power supply. Receivers without dynamic
headroom, and those that have their power drop dramatically below 8
ohms, are not recommended for driving real speakers no matter how high
their wattage figures may be."

from this link:

http://www.soundstage.com/entry01.htm

[Trevor Wilson]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:31:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


**Replace it with a Rotel.

Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485

**BZZZZT! How long has the RX-485 been identical to a Rotel?

**Oops. Typo alert. That should read:

How long has the RX-485 been identical to a RX-300U?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:42:09 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:31:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
egroups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


**Replace it with a Rotel.

Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485

**BZZZZT! How long has the RX-485 been identical to a Rotel?
How relevant is it to compare a Rotel to a Yamaha, when using headphones
if
the vast majority of people listen via speakers?


receiver and it sounds brilliant--better than the several budget
Rotels I've had.

I'd ask the OP why he feels the need for better compontents. What does
he feel the sound is lacking?

**He probably uses speakers. Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads.

Says you and how many others?

**Everyone who has measured them.

I cite the following on the RX-485:

"One company that does make high-current receivers for those on a
tight budget is Yamaha. Rated at 65w/ch continuously into 8 ohms, that
power goes up to 70w/ch for 6 ohm loads like the Mini-Reference.

**Big whoop. From 65 Watts to 70 Watts. A theorectically perfect amp will
run to around 85 Watts. The Yammay falls well short of ideal.

And
the dynamic power output figures really show greater
capabilities--into 8/6/4/2 ohms respectively, IHF rated dynamic power
is 96/115/135/150 watts/ch (and all these are full 20hz-20Khz
bandwidth ratings, unlike the cheating I've seen some companies do by
only measuring their amplifiers driving a 40hz+ signal).

**Except that dynamic power ratings are worse than bull****.

This sort of
output, with power going up into lower loads, is a characteristic of a
good design with a good power supply.

**No, it is not. It is just that dynamic power figures make good copy for
people who have no idea about what they're talking about. Like the author.

Receivers without dynamic
headroom, and those that have their power drop dramatically below 8
ohms, are not recommended for driving real speakers no matter how high
their wattage figures may be."

**Utter, banal bull****. The author needs to contact the following companies
and tell them how bad their amps a

Krell
Mark Levinson
Rowland
ME
Et al.

All the above amplifiers enjoy vanishingly small dynamic headroom figures.
The 'ideal' amplifier has a dynamic headroom figure of 0dB. As amplifiers
become worse (IE: Cheaper power supplies are used) then the dynamic headroom
figure rises as well.


from this link:

http://www.soundstage.com/entry01.htm

**Keep reading that nonsense Paul and you'll never learn anything. The
author clearly has no idea. My comments about your use of headphones remain.
The use of headphones invalidates your claim to knowing how an amplifier
sounds, for the vast majority of uses that the amplifier will be put to.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[paul packer]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:23:38 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:42:09 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:31:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
legroups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


**Replace it with a Rotel.

Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485

**BZZZZT! How long has the RX-485 been identical to a Rotel?
How relevant is it to compare a Rotel to a Yamaha, when using headphones
if
the vast majority of people listen via speakers?


receiver and it sounds brilliant--better than the several budget
Rotels I've had.

I'd ask the OP why he feels the need for better compontents. What does
he feel the sound is lacking?

**He probably uses speakers. Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads.

Says you and how many others?

**Everyone who has measured them.

I cite the following on the RX-485:

"One company that does make high-current receivers for those on a
tight budget is Yamaha. Rated at 65w/ch continuously into 8 ohms, that
power goes up to 70w/ch for 6 ohm loads like the Mini-Reference.

**Big whoop. From 65 Watts to 70 Watts. A theorectically perfect amp will
run to around 85 Watts. The Yammay falls well short of ideal.

And
the dynamic power output figures really show greater
capabilities--into 8/6/4/2 ohms respectively, IHF rated dynamic power
is 96/115/135/150 watts/ch (and all these are full 20hz-20Khz
bandwidth ratings, unlike the cheating I've seen some companies do by
only measuring their amplifiers driving a 40hz+ signal).

**Except that dynamic power ratings are worse than bull****.

This sort of
output, with power going up into lower loads, is a characteristic of a
good design with a good power supply.

**No, it is not. It is just that dynamic power figures make good copy for
people who have no idea about what they're talking about. Like the author.

Receivers without dynamic
headroom, and those that have their power drop dramatically below 8
ohms, are not recommended for driving real speakers no matter how high
their wattage figures may be."

**Utter, banal bull****. The author needs to contact the following companies
and tell them how bad their amps a

Krell
Mark Levinson
Rowland
ME
Et al.

All the above amplifiers enjoy vanishingly small dynamic headroom figures.
The 'ideal' amplifier has a dynamic headroom figure of 0dB. As amplifiers
become worse (IE: Cheaper power supplies are used) then the dynamic headroom
figure rises as well.


from this link:

http://www.soundstage.com/entry01.htm

**Keep reading that nonsense Paul and you'll never learn anything. The
author clearly has no idea.

I don't read it to learn anything, Trevor, merely to cite a contrary
opinion. I know enough about the measurements cited to be as
unimpressed by the figures as you were (one does learn something
reading all those hi-fi mags over the years); I just didn't like your
smug tone in disparaging (or rather damning) Yamahas. You tend to talk
in absolutes, and brook no contradiction. A bad habit.

My comments about your use of headphones remain.
The use of headphones invalidates your claim to knowing how an amplifier
sounds, for the vast majority of uses that the amplifier will be put to.

If that's true then there is no way of knowing what an amplifier
sounds like, since it will sound different with every speaker
depending on load---there is no constant. In a way headphones give a
true sound since they are not causing the amp any difficulty. And you
know, Trevor, this will come as a shock but....some people actually
prefer headphones to speakers. In fact there's a thriving community of
headphones users out there. So when you say (again rather smugly) that
I can't know the true sound of an amp listening through headphones,
maybe to me the sound through headphones IS the true sound.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 25, 4:22 am, (paul packer) wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:23:38 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"





wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:42:09 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:31:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

wrote in message
legroups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?

**Replace it with a Rotel.

Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485

**BZZZZT! How long has the RX-485 been identical to a Rotel?
How relevant is it to compare a Rotel to a Yamaha, when using headphones
if
the vast majority of people listen via speakers?

receiver and it sounds brilliant--better than the several budget
Rotels I've had.

I'd ask the OP why he feels the need for better compontents. What does
he feel the sound is lacking?

**He probably uses speakers. Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads.

Says you and how many others?

**Everyone who has measured them.

I cite the following on the RX-485:

"One company that does make high-current receivers for those on a
tight budget is Yamaha. Rated at 65w/ch continuously into 8 ohms, that
power goes up to 70w/ch for 6 ohm loads like the Mini-Reference.

**Big whoop. From 65 Watts to 70 Watts. A theorectically perfect amp will
run to around 85 Watts. The Yammay falls well short of ideal.

And
the dynamic power output figures really show greater
capabilities--into 8/6/4/2 ohms respectively, IHF rated dynamic power
is 96/115/135/150 watts/ch (and all these are full 20hz-20Khz
bandwidth ratings, unlike the cheating I've seen some companies do by
only measuring their amplifiers driving a 40hz+ signal).

**Except that dynamic power ratings are worse than bull****.

This sort of
output, with power going up into lower loads, is a characteristic of a
good design with a good power supply.

**No, it is not. It is just that dynamic power figures make good copy for
people who have no idea about what they're talking about. Like the author.

Receivers without dynamic
headroom, and those that have their power drop dramatically below 8
ohms, are not recommended for driving real speakers no matter how high
their wattage figures may be."

**Utter, banal bull****. The author needs to contact the following companies
and tell them how bad their amps a

Krell
Mark Levinson
Rowland
ME
Et al.

All the above amplifiers enjoy vanishingly small dynamic headroom figures.
The 'ideal' amplifier has a dynamic headroom figure of 0dB. As amplifiers
become worse (IE: Cheaper power supplies are used) then the dynamic headroom
figure rises as well.

from this link:

http://www.soundstage.com/entry01.htm

**Keep reading that nonsense Paul and you'll never learn anything. The
author clearly has no idea.

I don't read it to learn anything, Trevor, merely to cite a contrary
opinion. I know enough about the measurements cited to be as
unimpressed by the figures as you were (one does learn something
reading all those hi-fi mags over the years); I just didn't like your
smug tone in disparaging (or rather damning) Yamahas. You tend to talk
in absolutes, and brook no contradiction. A bad habit.

My comments about your use of headphones remain.
The use of headphones invalidates your claim to knowing how an amplifier
sounds, for the vast majority of uses that the amplifier will be put to.

If that's true then there is no way of knowing what an amplifier
sounds like, since it will sound different with every speaker
depending on load---there is no constant. In a way headphones give a
true sound since they are not causing the amp any difficulty. And you
know, Trevor, this will come as a shock but....some people actually
prefer headphones to speakers. In fact there's a thriving community of
headphones users out there. So when you say (again rather smugly) that
I can't know the true sound of an amp listening through headphones,
maybe to me the sound through headphones IS the true sound.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

============================
I'll make a nonsubstantial, non-technically knowledgeable
noncontribution.
Whenever I tried listening to eg. an orchestra on headphones I got a
feeling of claustrophobia. It sounded to me not remotely like the true
thing.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:23:38 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:42:09 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:31:23 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


wrote in message
glegroups.com...
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural Sound AMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


**Replace it with a Rotel.

Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485

**BZZZZT! How long has the RX-485 been identical to a Rotel?
How relevant is it to compare a Rotel to a Yamaha, when using headphones
if
the vast majority of people listen via speakers?


receiver and it sounds brilliant--better than the several budget
Rotels I've had.

I'd ask the OP why he feels the need for better compontents. What does
he feel the sound is lacking?

**He probably uses speakers. Rotels are designed to operate with
speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads.

Says you and how many others?

**Everyone who has measured them.

I cite the following on the RX-485:

"One company that does make high-current receivers for those on a
tight budget is Yamaha. Rated at 65w/ch continuously into 8 ohms, that
power goes up to 70w/ch for 6 ohm loads like the Mini-Reference.

**Big whoop. From 65 Watts to 70 Watts. A theorectically perfect amp will
run to around 85 Watts. The Yammay falls well short of ideal.

And
the dynamic power output figures really show greater
capabilities--into 8/6/4/2 ohms respectively, IHF rated dynamic power
is 96/115/135/150 watts/ch (and all these are full 20hz-20Khz
bandwidth ratings, unlike the cheating I've seen some companies do by
only measuring their amplifiers driving a 40hz+ signal).

**Except that dynamic power ratings are worse than bull****.

This sort of
output, with power going up into lower loads, is a characteristic of a
good design with a good power supply.

**No, it is not. It is just that dynamic power figures make good copy for
people who have no idea about what they're talking about. Like the author.

Receivers without dynamic
headroom, and those that have their power drop dramatically below 8
ohms, are not recommended for driving real speakers no matter how high
their wattage figures may be."

**Utter, banal bull****. The author needs to contact the following
companies
and tell them how bad their amps a

Krell
Mark Levinson
Rowland
ME
Et al.

All the above amplifiers enjoy vanishingly small dynamic headroom figures.
The 'ideal' amplifier has a dynamic headroom figure of 0dB. As amplifiers
become worse (IE: Cheaper power supplies are used) then the dynamic
headroom
figure rises as well.


from this link:

http://www.soundstage.com/entry01.htm

**Keep reading that nonsense Paul and you'll never learn anything. The
author clearly has no idea.

I don't read it to learn anything, Trevor, merely to cite a contrary
opinion.

**An opinion held by an idiot is a useless opinion.

I know enough about the measurements cited to be as
unimpressed by the figures as you were (one does learn something
reading all those hi-fi mags over the years); I just didn't like your
smug tone in disparaging (or rather damning) Yamahas.

**I was disparaging an RX-300U. I was not disparaging ALL Yamahas.

You tend to talk
in absolutes, and brook no contradiction. A bad habit.

**I have many bad habits. Suffering fools is not one of them.


My comments about your use of headphones remain.
The use of headphones invalidates your claim to knowing how an amplifier
sounds, for the vast majority of uses that the amplifier will be put to.

If that's true then there is no way of knowing what an amplifier
sounds like, since it will sound different with every speaker
depending on load---there is no constant.

**BINGO! Give the man $64,000.00. Now you're learning. We also need to
understand that to suggest one amplifier for the vast majority of
situations, that amplifier needs to have a wide load tolerance and a good
power supply. ALL Rotel amps satify those criteria, whilst only SOME Yamahas
can manage SOME of the criteria.


In a way headphones give a
true sound since they are not causing the amp any difficulty.

**Wrong. Headphones have many virtues, but all the listener can do is to
judge how the headphone circuit sounds (along with preamp sections, of
course) of any given amplifier. For instance: In general an amplifier fitted
with a dedicated headphone amplifier (which Rotels are NOT fitted with) will
tend to sound better than an amplifier which feeds the headphones through
high value resistors from a speaker output stage (which is how Rotel and
most other amps do it). IOW: You may not be comparing apples with apples.

And you
know, Trevor, this will come as a shock but....some people actually
prefer headphones to speakers.

**Non-sequitur.

In fact there's a thriving community of
headphones users out there.

**Non-sequitur.

So when you say (again rather smugly) that
I can't know the true sound of an amp listening through headphones,
maybe to me the sound through headphones IS the true sound.

**Non-sequitur. Please try to read what I write, not what you think I write.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[MiNe 109]

In article . com,
" wrote:

============================
I'll make a nonsubstantial, non-technically knowledgeable
noncontribution.
Whenever I tried listening to eg. an orchestra on headphones I got a
feeling of claustrophobia. It sounded to me not remotely like the true
thing.

There are several binaural recordings of the Pasadena Symphony available
(on Newport Classics) that may be as close as one can get outside of the
former Bell Labs and Microsoft.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_...e=UTF8&keyword
s=pasadena%20symphony&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Apasadena%20 symphony%2Ci%3Apopular

Sadly, the binaural effect seems lost on me! at least for the
Rachmaninoff disc I bought used.

Stephen

[paul packer]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:25:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**He probably uses speakers. Rotels are designed to operate with
speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads.

Says you and how many others?

**Everyone who has measured them.

I cite the following on the RX-485:

"One company that does make high-current receivers for those on a
tight budget is Yamaha. Rated at 65w/ch continuously into 8 ohms, that
power goes up to 70w/ch for 6 ohm loads like the Mini-Reference.

**Big whoop. From 65 Watts to 70 Watts. A theorectically perfect amp will
run to around 85 Watts. The Yammay falls well short of ideal.

And
the dynamic power output figures really show greater
capabilities--into 8/6/4/2 ohms respectively, IHF rated dynamic power
is 96/115/135/150 watts/ch (and all these are full 20hz-20Khz
bandwidth ratings, unlike the cheating I've seen some companies do by
only measuring their amplifiers driving a 40hz+ signal).

**Except that dynamic power ratings are worse than bull****.

This sort of
output, with power going up into lower loads, is a characteristic of a
good design with a good power supply.

**No, it is not. It is just that dynamic power figures make good copy for
people who have no idea about what they're talking about. Like the author.

Receivers without dynamic
headroom, and those that have their power drop dramatically below 8
ohms, are not recommended for driving real speakers no matter how high
their wattage figures may be."

**Utter, banal bull****. The author needs to contact the following
companies
and tell them how bad their amps a

Krell
Mark Levinson
Rowland
ME
Et al.

All the above amplifiers enjoy vanishingly small dynamic headroom figures.
The 'ideal' amplifier has a dynamic headroom figure of 0dB. As amplifiers
become worse (IE: Cheaper power supplies are used) then the dynamic
headroom
figure rises as well.


from this link:

http://www.soundstage.com/entry01.htm

**Keep reading that nonsense Paul and you'll never learn anything. The
author clearly has no idea.

I don't read it to learn anything, Trevor, merely to cite a contrary
opinion.

**An opinion held by an idiot is a useless opinion.

I know enough about the measurements cited to be as
unimpressed by the figures as you were (one does learn something
reading all those hi-fi mags over the years); I just didn't like your
smug tone in disparaging (or rather damning) Yamahas.

**I was disparaging an RX-300U. I was not disparaging ALL Yamahas.

" Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads."

Enough said.

You tend to talk
in absolutes, and brook no contradiction. A bad habit.

**I have many bad habits. Suffering fools is not one of them.

Do others ever say that about you? But of course, you wouldn't hear
it, would you?

My comments about your use of headphones remain.
The use of headphones invalidates your claim to knowing how an amplifier
sounds, for the vast majority of uses that the amplifier will be put to.

If that's true then there is no way of knowing what an amplifier
sounds like, since it will sound different with every speaker
depending on load---there is no constant.

**BINGO! Give the man $64,000.00. Now you're learning. We also need to
understand that to suggest one amplifier for the vast majority of
situations, that amplifier needs to have a wide load tolerance and a good
power supply. ALL Rotel amps satify those criteria, whilst only SOME Yamahas
can manage SOME of the criteria.

And what if an amp has good load tolerance and will drive any speaker,
but nevertheless sounds lousy? Would you recommend that amp?

In a way headphones give a
true sound since they are not causing the amp any difficulty.

**Wrong. Headphones have many virtues, but all the listener can do is to
judge how the headphone circuit sounds (along with preamp sections, of
course) of any given amplifier. For instance: In general an amplifier fitted
with a dedicated headphone amplifier (which Rotels are NOT fitted with) will
tend to sound better than an amplifier which feeds the headphones through
high value resistors from a speaker output stage (which is how Rotel and
most other amps do it). IOW: You may not be comparing apples with apples.

Disagree. I've listened to a lot of amps through good phones, and the
best sounding are those that feed from the speaker output stage. In
fact virtually all do anyway. You may cite one or two exotic
exceptions, but the fact remains that virtually all reasonably priced
amps feed the headphone socket from the speaker outlet through
resistors, and many sound brilliant while doing so. I have not been
impressed by dedicated HP amps, which sound thin and harsh by
comparison.

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:25:44 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**He probably uses speakers. Rotels are designed to operate with
speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads.

Says you and how many others?

**Everyone who has measured them.

I cite the following on the RX-485:

"One company that does make high-current receivers for those on a
tight budget is Yamaha. Rated at 65w/ch continuously into 8 ohms, that
power goes up to 70w/ch for 6 ohm loads like the Mini-Reference.

**Big whoop. From 65 Watts to 70 Watts. A theorectically perfect amp
will
run to around 85 Watts. The Yammay falls well short of ideal.

And
the dynamic power output figures really show greater
capabilities--into 8/6/4/2 ohms respectively, IHF rated dynamic power
is 96/115/135/150 watts/ch (and all these are full 20hz-20Khz
bandwidth ratings, unlike the cheating I've seen some companies do by
only measuring their amplifiers driving a 40hz+ signal).

**Except that dynamic power ratings are worse than bull****.

This sort of
output, with power going up into lower loads, is a characteristic of a
good design with a good power supply.

**No, it is not. It is just that dynamic power figures make good copy
for
people who have no idea about what they're talking about. Like the
author.

Receivers without dynamic
headroom, and those that have their power drop dramatically below 8
ohms, are not recommended for driving real speakers no matter how high
their wattage figures may be."

**Utter, banal bull****. The author needs to contact the following
companies
and tell them how bad their amps a

Krell
Mark Levinson
Rowland
ME
Et al.

All the above amplifiers enjoy vanishingly small dynamic headroom
figures.
The 'ideal' amplifier has a dynamic headroom figure of 0dB. As
amplifiers
become worse (IE: Cheaper power supplies are used) then the dynamic
headroom
figure rises as well.


from this link:

http://www.soundstage.com/entry01.htm

**Keep reading that nonsense Paul and you'll never learn anything. The
author clearly has no idea.

I don't read it to learn anything, Trevor, merely to cite a contrary
opinion.

**An opinion held by an idiot is a useless opinion.

I know enough about the measurements cited to be as
unimpressed by the figures as you were (one does learn something
reading all those hi-fi mags over the years); I just didn't like your
smug tone in disparaging (or rather damning) Yamahas.

**I was disparaging an RX-300U. I was not disparaging ALL Yamahas.

" Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads."

Enough said.

**Indeed. After you have tested as many Yamahas and Rotels (Marantz,
Pioneers, et al) as I have, then you will be well qualified to comment on
the relative qualities of each product.


You tend to talk
in absolutes, and brook no contradiction. A bad habit.

**I have many bad habits. Suffering fools is not one of them.

Do others ever say that about you?

**Very likely. That they may do so, doesn't concern me. Stupid people often
say stupid things.

But of course, you wouldn't hear
it, would you?

**Like I said.


My comments about your use of headphones remain.
The use of headphones invalidates your claim to knowing how an amplifier
sounds, for the vast majority of uses that the amplifier will be put to.

If that's true then there is no way of knowing what an amplifier
sounds like, since it will sound different with every speaker
depending on load---there is no constant.

**BINGO! Give the man $64,000.00. Now you're learning. We also need to
understand that to suggest one amplifier for the vast majority of
situations, that amplifier needs to have a wide load tolerance and a good
power supply. ALL Rotel amps satify those criteria, whilst only SOME
Yamahas
can manage SOME of the criteria.

And what if an amp has good load tolerance and will drive any speaker,
but nevertheless sounds lousy? Would you recommend that amp?

**Of course not. My point remains: Your experience with headphone listneing
(only) makes your ideas of what constitutes a good amplifier as pretty much
meaningless.


In a way headphones give a
true sound since they are not causing the amp any difficulty.

**Wrong. Headphones have many virtues, but all the listener can do is to
judge how the headphone circuit sounds (along with preamp sections, of
course) of any given amplifier. For instance: In general an amplifier
fitted
with a dedicated headphone amplifier (which Rotels are NOT fitted with)
will
tend to sound better than an amplifier which feeds the headphones through
high value resistors from a speaker output stage (which is how Rotel and
most other amps do it). IOW: You may not be comparing apples with apples.

Disagree.

**Then elaborate. Please feel free to be as technical as you wish.

I've listened to a lot of amps through good phones, and the
best sounding are those that feed from the speaker output stage.

**How do you know? Have you examined the schematic to determine that fact?
Can you read a schematic?

In
fact virtually all do anyway.

**Most do, some do not.

You may cite one or two exotic
exceptions,

**Nope. I can cite one or two which are hardly exotic, but use dedicated
headphone amplifiers.

but the fact remains that virtually all reasonably priced
amps feed the headphone socket from the speaker outlet through
resistors, and many sound brilliant while doing so.

**Nope. Acceptable - yes. Brilliant - no.

I have not been
impressed by dedicated HP amps, which sound thin and harsh by
comparison.

**Uh-huh. Which headphone amps?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[paul packer]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:28:56 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**I was disparaging an RX-300U. I was not disparaging ALL Yamahas.

" Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads."

Enough said.

**Indeed. After you have tested as many Yamahas and Rotels (Marantz,
Pioneers, et al) as I have, then you will be well qualified to comment on
the relative qualities of each product.

Not the point. You said you didn't condemn Yamahas per se. Your own
words say you did.

My comments about your use of headphones remain.
The use of headphones invalidates your claim to knowing how an amplifier
sounds, for the vast majority of uses that the amplifier will be put to.

If that's true then there is no way of knowing what an amplifier
sounds like, since it will sound different with every speaker
depending on load---there is no constant.

**BINGO! Give the man $64,000.00. Now you're learning. We also need to
understand that to suggest one amplifier for the vast majority of
situations, that amplifier needs to have a wide load tolerance and a good
power supply. ALL Rotel amps satify those criteria, whilst only SOME
Yamahas
can manage SOME of the criteria.

And what if an amp has good load tolerance and will drive any speaker,
but nevertheless sounds lousy? Would you recommend that amp?

**Of course not. My point remains: Your experience with headphone listneing
(only) makes your ideas of what constitutes a good amplifier as pretty much
meaningless.

Not meaningless to me. Nor other HP users.

In a way headphones give a
true sound since they are not causing the amp any difficulty.

**Wrong. Headphones have many virtues, but all the listener can do is to
judge how the headphone circuit sounds (along with preamp sections, of
course) of any given amplifier. For instance: In general an amplifier
fitted
with a dedicated headphone amplifier (which Rotels are NOT fitted with)
will
tend to sound better than an amplifier which feeds the headphones through
high value resistors from a speaker output stage (which is how Rotel and
most other amps do it). IOW: You may not be comparing apples with apples.

Disagree.

**Then elaborate. Please feel free to be as technical as you wish.

Naughty, naughty, Trevor. I know you can do better.

I've listened to a lot of amps through good phones, and the
best sounding are those that feed from the speaker output stage.

**How do you know? Have you examined the schematic to determine that fact?
Can you read a schematic?

Don't have to. When I see leads from the speaker outlets to the
headphone outlet board which sports 2 (almost always) 330 ohm
resistors, I know how the phones are being driven. Not very technical,
but I'd like you to prove me wrong by pointing out the (very well
hidden) HP amp on the board that is actually driving the phones but
somehow, mysteriously, isn't connected to the phones board.

And I've opened up a hell of a lot of amps.

In
fact virtually all do anyway.

**Most do, some do not.

Playing with words. Virtually all do.

You may cite one or two exotic
exceptions,

**Nope. I can cite one or two which are hardly exotic, but use dedicated
headphone amplifiers.

Please do so.

but the fact remains that virtually all reasonably priced
amps feed the headphone socket from the speaker outlet through
resistors, and many sound brilliant while doing so.

**Nope. Acceptable - yes. Brilliant - no.

Matter of opinion. My opinion--brilliant.

I have not been
impressed by dedicated HP amps, which sound thin and harsh by
comparison.

**Uh-huh. Which headphone amps?

MF X-Can v2

Little Dot 2 tube amp

A couple of Cmoys using different ICs

Any number of Rotel and NAD pre-amps (which obviously do use separate
HP amps).

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

I'll make a nonsubstantial, non-technically knowledgeable
noncontribution.

You're good at that, Ludo. ;-)

Whenever I tried listening to eg. an orchestra on
headphones I got a feeling of claustrophobia. It sounded
to me not remotely like the true thing.

Depends a lot on the recording and the headphones. I just spent about a week
of working days over a period of two weeks, sitting in the middle of row 1,
recording choirs and bands in a number of different venues.

My recording chain was composed of a Rode NT-4 microphone, a Symmetrix SX202
mic preamp, and a Tascam CD-RW4U CD recorder. My mic placement technique was
to move the mic around, perched on the top of a tall stand (max 12 feet),
until what I heard in my Audio Technica ATH A700 headphones, sounded
substantially like the live sound, both in terms of imaging and tonal
balance.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com

I'll make a nonsubstantial, non-technically knowledgeable
noncontribution.

You're good at that, Ludo. ;-)

Whenever I tried listening to eg. an orchestra on
headphones I got a feeling of claustrophobia. It sounded
to me not remotely like the true thing.

Depends a lot on the recording and the headphones. I just spent about a week
of working days over a period of two weeks, sitting in the middle of row 1,
recording choirs and bands in a number of different venues.

My recording chain was composed of a Rode NT-4 microphone, a Symmetrix SX202
mic preamp, and a Tascam CD-RW4U CD recorder. My mic placement technique was
to move the mic around, perched on the top of a tall stand (max 12 feet),
until what I heard in my Audio Technica ATH A700 headphones, sounded
substantially like the live sound, both in terms of imaging and tonal
balance.

Any interesting composers or works come to mind?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:


My
My
I

Any interesting composers or works come to mind?

Jnen are you claiming, Jen that you know more about "interesting" music
than, Arnii knows Jennn?





--

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

[g]

On Mar 23, 4:08 pm, wrote:
hi

i have a YAMAHA RX-300U natural SoundAMPLIFIER
i would like to replace some of the component with better pats.
any sugestion? this amp is only 2 X 37 chanel

any idea ?


I would first get the correct model #. You seem to have a tape deck??

I had a Yamaha integrated class A/B model a while back. Sure didn't
need
any work except for major switch cleaning. The biggest single
improvement, clean switches on older equipment!

greg

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:28:56 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


**I was disparaging an RX-300U. I was not disparaging ALL Yamahas.

" Rotels are designed to operate with speakers.
Yamahas work better with dummy loads."

Enough said.

**Indeed. After you have tested as many Yamahas and Rotels (Marantz,
Pioneers, et al) as I have, then you will be well qualified to comment on
the relative qualities of each product.

Not the point. You said you didn't condemn Yamahas per se. Your own
words say you did.

**I stated fact. Nothing more. Into an easy load (headphones, relatively
resistive, 8 Ohm speakers) Yamahas are fine. Anything else, a Rotel will
clobber the Yammy, as Rotels (generally) possess far better load tolerance
than Yamahas (generally).


My comments about your use of headphones remain.
The use of headphones invalidates your claim to knowing how an
amplifier
sounds, for the vast majority of uses that the amplifier will be put
to.

If that's true then there is no way of knowing what an amplifier
sounds like, since it will sound different with every speaker
depending on load---there is no constant.

**BINGO! Give the man $64,000.00. Now you're learning. We also need to
understand that to suggest one amplifier for the vast majority of
situations, that amplifier needs to have a wide load tolerance and a
good
power supply. ALL Rotel amps satify those criteria, whilst only SOME
Yamahas
can manage SOME of the criteria.

And what if an amp has good load tolerance and will drive any speaker,
but nevertheless sounds lousy? Would you recommend that amp?

**Of course not. My point remains: Your experience with headphone
listneing
(only) makes your ideas of what constitutes a good amplifier as pretty
much
meaningless.

Not meaningless to me. Nor other HP users.

**Indeed. Does the OP intend to use his amp with headphones (exclusively),
or is he like the vast majority of listeners, who will be using speakers?


In a way headphones give a
true sound since they are not causing the amp any difficulty.

**Wrong. Headphones have many virtues, but all the listener can do is to
judge how the headphone circuit sounds (along with preamp sections, of
course) of any given amplifier. For instance: In general an amplifier
fitted
with a dedicated headphone amplifier (which Rotels are NOT fitted with)
will
tend to sound better than an amplifier which feeds the headphones
through
high value resistors from a speaker output stage (which is how Rotel and
most other amps do it). IOW: You may not be comparing apples with
apples.

Disagree.

**Then elaborate. Please feel free to be as technical as you wish.

Naughty, naughty, Trevor. I know you can do better.

**You don't wish to elaborate?


I've listened to a lot of amps through good phones, and the
best sounding are those that feed from the speaker output stage.

**How do you know? Have you examined the schematic to determine that fact?
Can you read a schematic?

Don't have to.

**Yeah, you do.

When I see leads from the speaker outlets to the
headphone outlet board which sports 2 (almost always) 330 ohm
resistors, I know how the phones are being driven. Not very technical,
but I'd like you to prove me wrong by pointing out the (very well
hidden) HP amp on the board that is actually driving the phones but
somehow, mysteriously, isn't connected to the phones board.

**A headphone amp may not be fitted to the headphone PCB. The series
resistors may not be fitted to the headphone PCB. In fact, I would be very
cautious about telling anyone which amp uses a particular technology unless
I had sighted the schematic.


And I've opened up a hell of a lot of amps.

**I'd venture to say that I have opened up somewhat more.


In
fact virtually all do anyway.

**Most do, some do not.

Playing with words. Virtually all do.

You may cite one or two exotic
exceptions,

**Nope. I can cite one or two which are hardly exotic, but use dedicated
headphone amplifiers.

Please do so.

**The vast majority of budget preamps, cassette decks and CD players, which
are fitted with headphone sockets.
* Nakamichi AV-10 (Crappy headphone amp, BTW)
* Pioneer VSX-D209 (Nice headphone amp, BTW)
* Yamaha RX-V800 (Not bad HP amp) BTW: Thos one has high value resistors on
the HP PCB.
* Denon AVR-1601 (470 Ohm resistors fitted to the HP PCB)
* Denon AVR-1801
* Denon AVR-3300
* Et al.


ALL the above amps employ dedicated headphone amplification. ALL employ
series resistance. SOME place that series resistance on the headphone PCB.
You MUST read the schematic to verify if this is the case.



but the fact remains that virtually all reasonably priced
amps feed the headphone socket from the speaker outlet through
resistors, and many sound brilliant while doing so.

**Nope. Acceptable - yes. Brilliant - no.

Matter of opinion. My opinion--brilliant.

**You're entitled to your opinion. However, I doubt that you've ever heard a
really good headphone amplifier either.


I have not been
impressed by dedicated HP amps, which sound thin and harsh by
comparison.

**Uh-huh. Which headphone amps?

MF X-Can v2

**Like all MF products - overpriced and over-hyped.


Little Dot 2 tube amp

**Don't know it, but I see no point in using valves to drive headphones. It
is a counter-intuitive idea.


A couple of Cmoys using different ICs

**Well?


Any number of Rotel and NAD pre-amps (which obviously do use separate
HP amps).

**And most are VERY ordinary. SOME are excellent.

My points remain:

* Judging an amplifier by it's ability to drive headphones is not
necessarily how most listeners hear their music.
* Unless you read (and can read) a schematic, you won't know if an amplifier
uses a dedicated headphone amplifier or not.
* Unless you know which type of output stage is used, you won't know if any
given headphone amp sounds good or not.

As you correctly surmised, most non-headphone amp equipped amplifiers use a
220 - 470 Ohm series resistor to limit power to the headphones. What you may
not know is that most headphone amp equipped amplifiers use similar value
resistors in series with very cheap OP amps to drive headphones. This is
just plain daft. Headphones, like speakers work best when sourced from a low
impedance source. I've mentioned this to you, many times and made
appropriate suggestions to improve your headphone listening. Nothing has
altered.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

As you correctly surmised, most non-headphone amp
equipped amplifiers use a 220 - 470 Ohm series resistor
to limit power to the headphones.

So far, so good.

What you may not know
is that most headphone amp equipped amplifiers use
similar value resistors in series with very cheap OP amps
to drive headphones.

Wrong. Most op-amp based headphone amps use far lower value resistors, for
pretty obvious reasons. They'd have to use a far more expensive op amp and
power supply if they used such a large resistor. Series resistors are still
often used, but they are usually of a far lower value, for example 10-50
ohms.

http://www.rane.com/pdf/hc4sch.pdf

http://www.rane.com/pdf/hc6sch.pdf

http://www.rolls.com/data/ha43man.pdf

http://www.headwize.com/projects/cmoy2_prj.htm

http://www.minidisc.org/schem.gif

http://sound.westhost.com/project109.htm



This is just plain daft. Headphones,
like speakers work best when sourced from a low impedance
source.

Agreed.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:41:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

As you correctly surmised, most non-headphone amp
equipped amplifiers use a 220 - 470 Ohm series resistor
to limit power to the headphones.

So far, so good.

You're a wonderful watchdog, Arnie.

What you may not know
is that most headphone amp equipped amplifiers use
similar value resistors in series with very cheap OP amps
to drive headphones.

Wrong.

See.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

As you correctly surmised, most non-headphone amp
equipped amplifiers use a 220 - 470 Ohm series resistor
to limit power to the headphones.

So far, so good.

What you may not know
is that most headphone amp equipped amplifiers use
similar value resistors in series with very cheap OP amps
to drive headphones.

Wrong.

**Cite your evidence. Here is MY evidence:

The Denons I previously cited use 100 Ohm resistors. The Pioneer uses 220
Ohm resistors and the Nakamichi uses 470 Ohm resistors.

Most op-amp based headphone amps use far lower value resistors, for
pretty obvious reasons. They'd have to use a far more expensive op amp
and power supply if they used such a large resistor. Series resistors are
still often used, but they are usually of a far lower value, for example
10-50 ohms.

http://www.rane.com/pdf/hc4sch.pdf

http://www.rane.com/pdf/hc6sch.pdf

http://www.rolls.com/data/ha43man.pdf

http://www.headwize.com/projects/cmoy2_prj.htm

http://www.minidisc.org/schem.gif

http://sound.westhost.com/project109.htm

**Just reminder: We're discussing DOMESTIC audio equipment. These guys use
the cheapest, crappiest ICs they can find. Usually, 4558 derivatives.




This is just plain daft. Headphones,
like speakers work best when sourced from a low impedance
source.

Agreed.

**Good.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Trevor Wilson]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message

As you correctly surmised, most non-headphone amp
equipped amplifiers use a 220 - 470 Ohm series resistor
to limit power to the headphones.

So far, so good.

What you may not know
is that most headphone amp equipped amplifiers use
similar value resistors in series with very cheap OP amps
to drive headphones.

Wrong.

**Cite your evidence. Here is MY evidence:

The Denons I previously cited use 100 Ohm resistors.

**Whoops. The Denons use 470 Ohm resistors.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message

As you correctly surmised, most non-headphone amp
equipped amplifiers use a 220 - 470 Ohm series resistor
to limit power to the headphones.

So far, so good.

What you may not know
is that most headphone amp equipped amplifiers use
similar value resistors in series with very cheap OP
amps to drive headphones.

Wrong.

**Cite your evidence.

I did, just below.

Most op-amp based headphone amps use far lower value
resistors, for pretty obvious reasons. They'd have to use a far more
expensive op amp and power supply if they used such a
large resistor. Series resistors are still often used,
but they are usually of a far lower value, for example
10-50 ohms. http://www.rane.com/pdf/hc4sch.pdf

http://www.rane.com/pdf/hc6sch.pdf

http://www.rolls.com/data/ha43man.pdf

http://www.headwize.com/projects/cmoy2_prj.htm

http://www.minidisc.org/schem.gif

http://sound.westhost.com/project109.htm

**Just reminder: We're discussing DOMESTIC audio
equipment. These guys use the cheapest, crappiest ICs
they can find. Usually, 4558 derivatives.

Cite your evidence - do what I did - post links to schematics.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
.. .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson"
wrote in message

As you correctly surmised, most non-headphone amp
equipped amplifiers use a 220 - 470 Ohm series resistor
to limit power to the headphones.

So far, so good.

What you may not know
is that most headphone amp equipped amplifiers use
similar value resistors in series with very cheap OP
amps to drive headphones.

Wrong.

**Cite your evidence. Here is MY evidence:

The Denons I previously cited use 100 Ohm resistors.

**Whoops. The Denons use 470 Ohm resistors.

Prove your point like I did Trevor - post links to online schematics.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg does its "debating trade" dance.

Cite your evidence - do what I did - poop out enough turds to fill a huge toilet.

Is that fair, Arnii? Trevor is only human, but you're The Poop Machine.




--

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

[Trevor Wilson]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in
message
"Trevor Wilson" wrote
in message
.. .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson"
wrote in message

As you correctly surmised, most non-headphone amp
equipped amplifiers use a 220 - 470 Ohm series resistor
to limit power to the headphones.

So far, so good.

What you may not know
is that most headphone amp equipped amplifiers use
similar value resistors in series with very cheap OP
amps to drive headphones.

Wrong.

**Cite your evidence. Here is MY evidence:

The Denons I previously cited use 100 Ohm resistors.

**Whoops. The Denons use 470 Ohm resistors.

Prove your point like I did Trevor - post links to online schematics.

**I have no idea if on-line schematics exist for the models listed. I have
it on paper, right here in front of me. How much will you pay me (Paypal
will be fine) to bugger around scanning and posting COPYRIGHT material to a
place you designate? Alternatively, you could accept my word for it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Just reminder: We're discussing DOMESTIC audio equipment. These guys use
the cheapest, crappiest ICs they can find. Usually, 4558 derivatives.

Get a DAC-1. High-quality headphone amp built right in!

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said to DebatingTradeBorg:

How much will you pay me (Paypal
will be fine) to bugger around scanning and posting COPYRIGHT material to a
place you designate? Alternatively, you could accept my word for it.

Hahahahaha. Good one. We all know the Krooborg doesn't understand that
concept. All it cares about is the "debating trade", which means endless
arguing, quibbling, and caviling about every shred of every topic of
every thread mentioned on Usenet.




--

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

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...


Trevor Wilson said to DebatingTradeBorg:

How much will you pay me (Paypal
will be fine) to bugger around scanning and posting COPYRIGHT material to
a
place you designate? Alternatively, you could accept my word for it.

Hahahahaha. Good one. We all know the Krooborg doesn't understand that
concept. All it cares about is the "debating trade", which means endless
arguing, quibbling, and caviling about every shred of every topic of
every thread mentioned on Usenet.

**It seems happy to see me breach Copyright laws in the process.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

How much will you pay me (Paypal
will be fine) to bugger around scanning and posting COPYRIGHT material to
a place you designate? Alternatively, you could accept my word for it.

Hahahahaha. Good one. We all know the Krooborg doesn't understand that
concept. All it cares about is the "debating trade", which means endless
arguing, quibbling, and caviling about every shred of every topic of
every thread mentioned on Usenet.

**It seems happy to see me breach Copyright laws in the process.

Irellavent™. Given™ the Krooborg's desperate need to have the last
word, your refusal to comply with its standards of "evidence" is a
victory for Turdborg.





--

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