🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> 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.
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.

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.

> >> **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.
 
>  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? Are you saying that people are purchasing gear in
order to sell it down the line? Oops, I forgot that you are
a hi-fi salesman.

In any case, a super-expensive amp (like that Krell) is an
overpriced item that appeals to suckers. Smart shoppers get
an upscale receiver and use the money saved to purchase more
recordings. 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.
Actually, even specs are suspect, because there is a point
beyond which it makes no sense to go. 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.

> >> >> **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. Many, if not
most, so-called serious audio enthusiasts are jerks with too
much spare cash.

>  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? By the way, I am retired and not a
professional writer. However, at least, unlike you, I have
published material.

> **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.

> 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. 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.

> > 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.

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

> > 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.
 
>  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.
You, on the other hand, are working to build up points with
customers.

> >> **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? However, I think that most people vastly
overestimate the amount of power they need to achieve decent
sound levels in normal listening rooms. Going beyond that
point is overkill. Also, going below distortion requirements
that are not all that low to begin with is also overkill.
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. 

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. And
even if by some miracle you could hear a difference you
would not be able to tell which is best. Frankly, it makes
no sense at all to invest in speakers that require weird
wire to operate optimally.
 
>  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. However, for really discriminating
people (like you) only the exotic wires will work with those
demanding exotic speakers. What bunk.
 
>  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.

> 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.
 
> >>  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.

Howard Ferstler