🚀 go-pugleaf

"Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:42DEF6A5.2E68B084@attglobal.net...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:42DC1880.E6831157@attglobal.net...
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> >> Of course, your suggestion that I was incorrect held no weight with
>> >> any reader on any forum, given your complete ignorance of modern
>> >> electronic
>> >> devices and their technical features. It is this point where I am most
>> >> incensed.
>
>> > Most incensed? Get a life.
>>
>> **And I'll tell you again: I am qualified to discuss technical issues 
>> with
>> audio equipment. You are not.
>
> And I suppose this also qualifies you to tell people that
> special amps (ones that you sell) and special wires perform
> better than mainstream versions that may cost considerably
> less?

**Strawman noted. BTW: When I discuss such things, I always refer to 
technical reasons why a product may outperform another. Always.

>
>> > However, I still hold that a near short in parallel with a
>> > speaker will render that speaker mute, no matter what the
>> > protection circuits are doing.
>
>> **And again, you are wrong. Here is where you are wrong (which you have 
>> been
>> told many times):
>>
>> * A 'short circuit' is NEVER Zero Ohms. Not ever.
>
> I said "near short." Learn to read.

**I already have. It was me who explained to you that a short circuit is 
NEVER zero Ohms. Not ever.

 And if it is in parallel
> with a speaker load that has way, way more resistance (not
> to mention the additional AC impedance added) just how much
> current is going to be available to pass through the
> speaker?

**I suggest you read the words written by Mr Pinkerton and Mr Pierce. Mr 
Pierce, in particular, has written eloquently and succinctly on this topic.

>
>> * A study of Thevenin's Theorem will show you where you are wrong.
>> * Other channels may still operate normally, 'till the protection system
>> shuts them down.
>
> Here, I will agree with you. But I was talking about the
> channel with the short.

**And again, you called me names, after I explained your errors. And 
further: The channel with the short can still make sound, under most 
conditions.

>
>> > As for you being correct, for all of my limitations I do not
>> > make silly claims about amplifier and wire "sound" as you
>> > have in the past. I do not offer up a bill of goods to
>> > customers who are perceived as big-spending suckers.
>>
>> **Strawman noted. For the record: I don't make silly claims about 
>> amplifiers
>> and wire, either. All my so-called "claims" are backed up by actual 
>> facts. A
>> point you continue to ignore. SOP.
>
> My take on this is if that special amp of yours sounds
> different from mainstream units of decent quality (this
> would require a DBT of some kind to make the comparison
> worthwhile) there is something wrong with your amp.

**You are entitled to your opinion. One which is rooted in ignorance, I 
might add.

>
>> > Like the subjectivists, I hear what I hear. Unlike most
>> > subjectivists, however, I do not hear the artifacts that you
>> > and your kind claim inhabit amps and wires.
>
>> **That you can't hear obvious problems is not, well, my problem. Of 
>> course,
>> for a defender of Bose, that is not altogether surprising.
>
> I do not know where you got the idea that I am a defender of
> Bose. I have reviewed the 901 systems (and published a
> review), but my guess is that you never read the review. I
> thought it was an interesting system with notable
> limitations.

**The Bose 901 is a flawed speaker, designed around faulty logic. It's 
survival was based on the litigious nature of Dr Bose, combined with a 
superb marketing department and dumb patent issuers. It's present survival 
is based solely on Bose's need to keep the illusion alive. Bose sells so few 
of the model that it is impossible to justify, based on sales alone. There 
never was anything to praise the Bose 901 on. "Helically wound voice coils" 
indeed! It's like saying: "The Pontiac GTO uses cylindrical pistons."

>
>> >>  Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround
>> >> > sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver
>> >> > wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit.
>
>> >> **Really? Let's talk about obsolescence sometime. See how much a 5 
>> >> year
>> >> old
>> >> receiver sells for. Then go price a 10 year old Krell. The Krell will
>> >> have
>> >> hled more of it's value than your 5 year old receiver.
>
>> > So what?
>
>> **You're talking about money pits. Typical cheap audio equipment
>> (particularly surround sound amps) plummet in value very rapidly.
>
> So what? The user has purchased them to use for home
> enjoyment and not for investment purposes. Audio gear is not
> a commodity. It is a means to an end.

**Cheap audio equipment often turns out to be wasteful and expensive, due to 
it's inherent limitations. Often, but not always.

>
>>  Are you saying that people are purchasing gear in
>> > order to sell it down the line?
>
>> **Most do. Unless they buy cheap gear, which goes out with the trash.
>
> Obviously, you hang around with weird audio buffs too much.
> Mix it up with some music lovers some time: those who
> purchase gear to enjoy and not to resell.

**I do. In fact, I visited one of my best clients last Monday. He is still 
using the same amp and preamp I sold him, back in 1988. It still functions 
well. A step up from his previous equipment, which was unsatisfying, 
unreliable and provided a poor resale, when he finally tired of it.

>
>>  Oops, I forgot that you are
>> > a hi-fi salesman.
>
>> **Indeed. I am also a qualified tech, with 30 odd years hands on 
>> experience.
>
> One could be well-trained as hell and still be a con artist.
> Goebbels had a Phd.
>
>>  Smart shoppers get
>> > an upscale receiver and use the money saved to purchase more
>> > recordings.
>
>> **Which becomes obsolete within 18 months.
>
> Well, they may indeed face that problem in the realm of
> surround sound. However, you can purchase a LOT of upscale
> receivers over the years for what one super amp costs.

**No. Of course, your definition of "super amp" and mine may be quite 
different.

 Throw
> in the money saved by purchasing lamp cord instead of exotic
> speaker wires, and that leaves lots of cash for purchasing
> recordings.

**You think the difference in cost between 'zip' cord and RG213 is that 
significant? Dream on.

>
>> >> > OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps.
>> >
>> >> **No. It sounds like all other amps which posses IDENTICAL specs.
>>
>> > And I'll bet that no other amp out there has such specs.
>
>> **Possibly.
>
> My guess is that it has problems, assuming that it really
> does sound different from good mainstream units.

**Of course your guesses are about as useful as anything else you have to 
say.

>
>> > Actually, even specs are suspect, because there is a point
>> > beyond which it makes no sense to go.
>
>> **Which point would that be? Please, give us your TECHNICAL opinion on 
>> the
>> relevance of various specifications.
>
> Any full reply would be a long-winded post, and this series
> is too long as it is.

**Lack of response, duly noted.

 Suffice to say that even rather
> mundane receivers have distortion levels low enough to be
> essentially transparent with typical speaker loads. What
> more would anyone want?


**An amplifier which can deal with REAL speaker loads, up to and past the 
point of clipping.

>
> Oops, I forgot, a typical tweako wants an amp (and wires)
> that he can puff himself up over, and brag about.

**Some do. Some don't.

>
>> > The hobby is infested with deluded people.
>
>> **Most of us are well aware of your delusions, Howard.
>
> At least I do not con suckers into spending big on overkill
> amps and wires.

**You just con people into buying books, written by one who ahs little real 
knowledge about the subject.

>
>>  Many, if not
>> > most, so-called serious audio enthusiasts are jerks with too
>> > much spare cash.
>
>> **Indeed. However, these strawman arguments have little to do with
>> electrostatic speakers. Electrostatics manage some performance parameters
>> which are simply impossible with other designs.
>
> Read Stanley Lipshitz' paper on the limitations of
> line-source radiators. It is available as an AES reprint.

**I am aware of the limitations (and strengths) of line source arrays. Are 
you aware of the advantages of some electrostatic speakers?

>
>> Those performance parameters
>> come at a cost (amplifier-wise). Make no mistake: Electrostatic speakers 
>> are
>> not perfect. Far from it. They can often be comprehensively outperformed 
>> by
>> far less expensive designs.
>
> So why purchase them?

**Because they do some things better than other speakers.

 I mean, they have all sorts of
> limitations and I see no sonic advantages to them at all.

**Who said they have no sonic advantages? Certainly not me. And certainly 
not anyone who has experienced them.

>
>> >>  Just
>> >> > how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way.
>
>> >> **Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer?
>
>> > OK, you tweako sales clerk: just how long a speaker WIRE run
>> > are we talking about?
>
>> **As little as 3-4 Metres, depending on the load.
>
> This is claptrap of the highest order. Congratulations: you
> win the con-artist award of the day.

**Congratulations on revealing your ignorance of the problems involved.

>
>>  By the way, I am retired and not a
>> > professional writer. However, at least, unlike you, I have
>> > published material.
>
>> **So what? You write about stuff you have no real knowledge of.
>
> But I do not CON people, pal.

**You've conned publishers.

 I do not sell them a bill of
> goods when it comes to the so-called sound of amps and wire.
> I do not "recommend" that they spend big for zero results.

**That would be a matter of opinion.

>
>> That does
>> not make it a particularly valid point. You write about stuff you PRETEND 
>> to
>> have knowledge of. I actually sort out problems with system, because I
>> actually HAVE the knowledge.
>
> This is crap. Your comments about wire performance
> automatically show that while you MAY have knowledge in some
> areas, you are not above spouting baloney to make money.

**How? How do I make money by suggesting that SOME listeners can benefit 
from using low inductance speaker cables? How do I make money, when I 
suggest a VERY common type of GENERIC cable, available from dozens of 
manufacturers and literally thousands of sources?

>
>> >> **See what I mean? I prove you wrong. Completely, utterly wrong and 
>> >> you
>> >> insult me. That is what I am talking about. You are a nasty 
>> >> individual.
>
>> > It takes a nasty individual to deal with the tweakos and con
>> > artists occupying audio these days. Frankly, I would prefer
>> > that the FBI do the work, but they are occupied elsewhere.
>
>> **The problem is you can't argue with knowledgable "tweakos" (to use your
>> terminology), because you lack the knowledge and experience.
>
> One does not need to be a weatherman to see which way the
> wind is blowing. Similarly, one does not need to be an audio
> engineer to see when someone is spouting claptrap for cash.

**Strawman noted.

>
>> >> Try
>> >> and stay on topic and keep to the facts. I proved you wrong. You know 
>> >> (or
>> >> shoudl know it) and everyone else knows it. You should cut your losses
>> >> and
>> >> admit it.
>
>> > Well, I misunderstood the poster's question and got myself
>> > off on a tangent.
>
>> **No one else "misunderstood" it. You "misunderstood" the question, 
>> because:
>> * You did not READ what was written.
>> * You don't possess the knowledge to deal with problems of moderate
>> complexity.
>
> Go read some of my books, as well as some of my entries and
> editing work in the new edition of The Encyclopedia of
> Recorded Sound (Routledge, 2005), and see if you can
> understand some of the stuff I write about basic audio.

**Why? You have amply demonstrated that I can learn nothing useful from any 
of your books.

>
>>  You popped up and I remembered what kind
>> > of person you were and got even further off on a tangent.
>> > People like you do that sort of thing to me.
>
>> **What? People who actually know what they're talking about? How curious.
>> You should listen to me. You might just learn something.
>
> Only if I decided to become a soft-pedaling racketeer in the
> audio business.
>
>> > They do not, and when a con artist like you says that his
>> > very special amp has advantages over them, I roll my eyes
>> > and remember just how much of a bad joke this hobby has
>> > become.
>
>> >>  If your amp sounds different from the
>> >> > crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than
>> >> > they.
>
>> >> **And again, you speak from a position of ignorance.
>
>> > Nobody is fully free of ignorance, but at least I am honest
>> > in my claims.
>>
>> **You can't claim honesty as a defence, just because you're ignorant. 
>> That
>> won't wash.
>
> Well, who is superior: the honest man with limited knowledge
> and common sense or the con artist who has knowledge but
> uses it for underhanded results?

**Given those two choices (only), I would say the honest man. However, there 
are a raft of other choices, in the real world. The person who THINKS he is 
honest, advising people, whilst he possesses no real knowledge about the 
subject is dangerous and is still a con man. Kinda like if my mechanic 
offered to perform a heart bypass surgery on my mum.


 For the record, if I was as
> ignorant as you claim I would never have been able to get
> four books published, nor would Routledge have asked me to
> do the technical editing work on The Encyclopedia of
> Recorded Sound.

**Really? How many books did L Ron Hubbard manage to get published? Ever 
read the Bible? The Qur An? There are many books contining utter rubbish, 
which have been and are still being published.

>
>>  I do not con people into spending big on
>> > overkill items.
>
>> **How about your books? They certainly qualify.
>
> They at least do not con people into spending on overkill
> and overpriced amps and wires, tweako.

**And they probably don't give many listeners enough knowledge to gain the 
best from their systems, either. The writer is simply too ignorant.

>
>> > Well, I do not remember saying that. But if I did I was
>> > wrong. In any case, there should have been no sound coming
>> > from the speaker hooked up to the offending, near-shorted
>> > line.
>
>> **You have been told many times, by many people, that you are wrong in 
>> this
>> point. When will you learn and admit your error?
>
> Well, just how much current is passing through that speaker
> in parallel with the near short?

**That would depend on a great number of factors. These include:
* Source impedance.
* Impedance of the cable.
* Impedance and efficiency of the speakers.
* The location of the short circuit.
* The actual impedance of the short circuit.

Without knowing ALL of the above, with a fair degree of precision, it is 
impossible to say.

 If no current is flowing
> the speaker will not make sound.

**Indeed. However, that is a bold and possibly incorrect assumption.

>
>> > You, on the other hand, are working to build up points with
>> > customers.
>
>> **No. I am waiting for an apology and an admission from you that you are
>> wrong.
>
> Don't hold your breath. I do not apologize to people like
> you.

**Of course. I expected nothing less.

>
>>  However, I think that most people vastly
>> > overestimate the amount of power they need to achieve decent
>> > sound levels in normal listening rooms.
>
>> **What do you base this opinion on?
>
> Listening to music and measuring the sound level at sane
> levels. Yeah, I know that rocko-socko freaks like to crack
> plaster, and in that case such idiots may need all the power
> they can afford.

**Do you monitor the output with a 'scope, to ensure that Voltage limiting 
is not being reached?

>
>>  Going beyond that
>> > point is overkill. Also, going below distortion requirements
>> > that are not all that low to begin with is also overkill.
>
>> **I agree. In fact, to achieve VERY low levels of THD, other performance
>> parameters can be negatively affected.
>
> Which is why it is not necessary for amps, including
> mainstream jobs, to have ultra-special specs.
>
>> > I'll wager that under most listening conditions with those
>> > special speakers (with runs that are not ridiculously long)
>> > even YOU would not be able to tell the difference between
>> > heavy lamp cord and your "special" and expensive wire.
>
>> **I'm not discussing me. My opions and listening abilities (or lack 
>> thereof)
>> are not the issue.
>
> Well, I disagree. For me, they are the crux of the issue.

**Why?

>
>>  And
>> > even if by some miracle you could hear a difference you
>> > would not be able to tell which is best.
>
>> **Wrong. Not only could I hear it, but I could produce the measurements 
>> to
>> prove it. You seem to by under the delusion that some speaker cables are
>> actually MEASURABLY better than others.
>
> Well, really thin wires would certainly have a higher
> resistance. In any case, typical runs of speaker wire of
> reasonable thickness just do not have an impact on sound
> quality that matters.

**That would depend on a number of factors.

>
>>  Frankly, it makes
>> > no sense at all to invest in speakers that require weird
>> > wire to operate optimally.
>
>> **I could say the same thing about my mate's Ferrari.
>
> So would I.

**Then go drive one. You may well be inclined to alter your perception. I 
did.

>
>> He has to use
>> expensive petrol, or the manufacturer will void his warranty and the 
>> engine
>> will be damaged. At least it made no sense to me, until after he let me 
>> take
>> it for a spin. Hell, I'd even use distilled newborn babies, if it made 
>> the
>> car run properly. Very sweet ride.
>
> There is no figuring the childish mind.

**Spoken like a man who either:
* Has never driven a Ferrari.
* Has no interest in driving.

>
>> Same deal electrostatic speakers. After
>> you listen to a good pair, properly set up, with decent amplification and
>> low inductance speaker cables, get back to me. Then we can talk.
>
> Some people like speakers that, when listened to from a
> precisely determined sweet spot, sound like super-sized
> headphones. Not my cup of tea from a live-music perspective.

**BINGO! Not YOUR cup of tea. That is an opinion you are entitled to. Just 
because others do not share your OPINION, that does not make them wrong. 
They just have a different opinion.

>
>> >>  Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy
>> >> > lamp cord for typical home installations?
>
>> >> **Pretty much every day, in fact. It's all most people need for their
>> >> crappy
>> >> surround sound systems. Anything else is massive over-kill.
>
>> > Ah, crappy surround-sound systems. This is it in a nutshell:
>> > you are basically saying that most people listen to junk,
>> > and so lamp cord is OK.
>
>> **Duh. Except for SACD and DVD-A, surround sound schemes are extremely 
>> lossy
>> systems. Quality is sacrificed.
>
> You need to get out more.

**No. I just speak the facts.

>
>> MOST surround sound receiver manufacturers
>> are aware of this and they make serious compromises in the analogue 
>> sections
>> of their products.
>
> Perhaps in the phono preamp and tuner sections.

**And the line stages. And the power amp stages. And the power supplies. Try 
running a decent 2 channel amp, at 40% and 100% of maximum power for 30 mins 
and see what happens. Then do the same thing with a decent 5 (or 6 or 7) 
channel amp. Watch what happens.

 But that is
> not something that interests me that much. In the amp and
> control sections, I think that modern receivers of mid-pack
> quality can hold their own against the upscale stuff you
> worship.

**Without knowing specifics, it is impossible for me to argue with you. Some 
"upscale" stuff is appallingly badly designed and manufactured. Some is not.

>
>>  However, for really discriminating
>> > people (like you) only the exotic wires will work with those
>> > demanding exotic speakers. What bunk.
>
>> **Really? Do some tests and get back to me.
>
> I have done tests - listening tests.

**What did you test? What speakers? How long was the run? What was the 
inductance of the two cables tested?

 What you say is so
> obviously a con as to be patently outrageous. Then, again,
> perhaps you are just deluded.
>
>> >>  Do you push the
>> >> > exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well
>> >> > as in these situations that involve SOME systems?
>
>> >> **Nope. Never. In fact, I never "push" fancy speaker cables. Depending 
>> >> on
>> >> the system, I may make a reccommendation for low inductance speaker
>> >> cables.
>
>> > Hair splitting: pushing vs recommending. Funny how language
>> > can make a con artist feel good about what he does.
>
>> **It is a BIG difference.
>
> To you, maybe.

**To anyone with a brain.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au