🚀 go-pugleaf

"Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:42DC1880.E6831157@attglobal.net...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:42D48270.91F05CCE@attglobal.net...
>
>> 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.

>
>> You STILL deny that I was correct, in spite of the fact that NOT
>> ONE SINGLE poster has supported your nonsensical stance. Not Arny, not 
>> Dick
>> Pierce, no one. You're out on a limb and completely out of your gourd.
>
> It is likely that I misunderstood the individual's problem.

**It is not "likely". It is an irrefutable fact. One which you continue to 
obfuscate.


> 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.
* 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.



>
> 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.

>
>> >> **Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure
>> >> identically
>> >> to them. There has never been any argument over this point.
>
>> > Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are
>> > gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced
>> > receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic
>> > amp.
>
>> **You may make as many claims as you wish. You're still operating from a
>> point of ignorance.
>
> 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.

>
>>  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. Decent 
equipment (such as Krells) tend to hold a reasonable portion of their 
original purchase price for many years.

 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.

 Oops, I forgot that you are
> a hi-fi salesman.

**Indeed. I am also a qualified tech, with 30 odd years hands on experience.

>
> In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
> overpriced item that appeals to suckers.

**Perhaps.

 Smart shoppers get
> an upscale receiver and use the money saved to purchase more
> recordings.

**Which becomes obsolete within 18 months.

 If they are equipment junkies they can use the
> money saved to get better speakers, subwoofers, etc.
>
>> >> **IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be
>> >> entitled
>> >> to say so.
>
>> > 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.

> 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.

 That is, even if your
> amp has superior specs compared to most others those specs
> live in a realm that is beneath the point where they would
> be audible.

**Possibly. Some systems place different demands on amplifiers.

>
>> >> >> **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained 
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> SOME
>> >> >> cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.
>
>> >> > Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.
>
>> >> **Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And 
>> >> that
>> >> is
>> >> the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that 
>> >> speaker
>> >> cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from
>> >> low
>> >> inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong.
>
>> > Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with.
>
>> **That is an opinion you get to have. It is not one shared by many
>> listeners.
>
> The hobby is infested with deluded people.

**Most of us are well aware of your delusions, Howard.

 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. 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.

>
>>  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.

 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. 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.

>
>> **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.

>
>> 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.


 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.

>
>> > Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever.
>
>> **Very likely true. You are already a laughing stock. You can't sink much
>> lower.
>
> Four books and one big technical editing job completed,
> tweako, plus 170+ magazine articles. Not bad work for a
> laughing stock, tweako.
>
>>  On the other
>> > hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area
>> > because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run
>> > while you have the chance.
>
>> **You know very little about me. I don't cut and run from someone who is
>> wrong.
>
> There is no figuring the ignorant man.

**You got that right.

>
>> I will continue to attack, until you admit your mistakes and
>> apologise. I will not stop.
>
> There is also no figuring the fanatical man.
>
>> >> > I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
>> >> > matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
>> >> > notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
>> >> > respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
>> >> > speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
>> >> > speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
>> >> > conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
>> >> > rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
>> >> > still nothing exotic about their design.
>
>> >> **How would you know?
>
>> > They sounded the same as all the others, tweako.
>
>> **I'll ask the question again: How would you know?
>
> I hate to sound like a subjectivist, but the stuff sounded
> the same. Oops, a subjectivist would have claimed that they
> sounded different, with a favored model having all sorts of
> mesmerizing sound qualities. Yeah, I am a subjectivist down
> deep, but unlike most other subjectivists I am not deluded.
>
>> >> > I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
>> >> > your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
>> >> > with it.
>
>> >> **IOW: You don't know.
>
>> > Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds
>> > "better" than most of the competition. If the competition
>> > all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can
>> > conclude that those amps sound that way because they have
>> > inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of
>> > those somewhat different topologies all had identical
>> > audible distortions?
>
>> **Very high, since all use similar topologies, WRT Global NFB.
>
> So what. They still are built differently enough for audible
> artifacts to allow them to sound at least a tad different.

**Your lack of knowledge about what Global NFB does to an amplifier is duly 
noted.


> 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.

 I do not con people into spending big on
> overkill items.

**How about your books? They certainly qualify.

>
>> > Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that
>> > at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the
>> > speakers.
>
>> **The poster said that the amp did not shut down 'till moderate levels 
>> were
>> reached. You claimed that this was not possible.
>
> 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?

>
>>  This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of
>> > the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead
>> > in parallel with the speaker.
>
>> **The vast bulk of the output from ONE CHANNEL. The other channels would 
>> be
>> unaffected (within reason).
>
> Good point. I suppose that would result in noise from those
> other channels. But I was talking about amps in general.

**So am I. And, as I have explained many times, there are many different 
types of protection systems in domestic amplifiers. They all have different 
effects. I even found a very interesting one used by a range of Sony 
surround sound receivers. All 5 channels were linked to the same protection 
system. When one channel failed, the fault took out the other 4 channels, 
causing severe PCB damage in the process. This would be one of the 
"competent, inexpensive" products you continually talk about. I just call it 
dumb, penny-pinching design. The kind of design crap I face daily.


> 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.

>
>> >> **I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do,
>> >> indeed,
>> >> sound identical.
>
>> > And now I suppose you are going to say that your very
>> > special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least
>> > most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get
>> > below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including
>> > yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at
>> > least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels.
>
>> **What is a "standard speaker load"? How can you guarantee that an amp
>> remains below clipping at ALL times?
>
> Well, you cannot?

**Exactly. Without unlimited power, it is important for an amplifier to clip 
in a fashion which is the least unpleasant.

 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?

 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.

> Frankly, I think the whole issue boils down to economics:
> people want to sell amps and wires, and they will do or say
> what it takes to do so, even to the point of believing their
> own nonsense.

**Indeed. That is possible.

>
> As for whether they REALLY believe all the poppycock, I
> could not say. Some no doubt are full-tilt con artists, but
> others may be as deluded as their customers.
>
>> >>  decently thick lamp cord works as well as
>> >> > exotic speaker wire.
>
>> >> **For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no.
>
>> > Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening
>> > environment.
>
>> **Wrong.
>
> 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.

 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.

 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. 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. 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.

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

 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.

>
>>  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.

>
>> I even suggest where people can buy those cables. Dick Smith Electronics 
>> is
>> one of the outlets I suggest. Which, of course, you'd know, if you did 
>> even
>> a modicum of research. DSE sell the fancy, low inductance cable for 4 
>> Bucks
>> a Metre. Google it, if you don't beleive me.
>
> Thick lamp cord sells here in the USA for about 30 cents a
> foot. I'd choose that over your fancy stuff and use the
> change to purchase more recordings.

**And I would expect RG213 would be very inexpensive in the US.

>
>> >>  If you say that I will apologize for
>> >> > what I have written about you.
>
>> >> **No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me.
>
>> > Well, not now I won't.
>>
>> **You have managed to meet my expectations of you.
>
> And, as usual, you have met mine, tweako.

**Snap.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au