🚀 go-pugleaf

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? 

> > 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. 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?

> * 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. 
 
> > 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.

> > 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.
 
> >>  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.

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

> >> > 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.
 
> > 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. 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?

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

> > 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.

>  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.

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

> >>  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.
 
>  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. 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 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.

> >> **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.

> >> 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.
 
>  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? 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.
 
>  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.

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

> > 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.

>  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.
 
>  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.

>  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.
 
>  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.

> 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.

> 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.

> >>  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.

> 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. 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.

>  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 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.

Howard Ferstler