🚀 go-pugleaf

"Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:42D48270.91F05CCE@attglobal.net...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:42D4755A.79ACD965@attglobal.net...
>
>> >> > Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
>> >> > audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
>> >> > down.
>
>> >> **That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a 
>> >> short
>> >> circuit is not zero Ohms?
>
>> > As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
>> > ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
>> > with a speaker load it might as well be zero.
>
>> **Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to
>> state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything
>> about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make 
>> fundamental
>> errors.
>
> First, I served four years in the USAF as an electronics
> technician, and so I do know something about electronics.
> Not college level, but not chopped-liver level, either.

**Unless you studied circuit analysis (which, it is abundantly obvious, you 
did not) you know only the barest superficial stuff.

> Second, I know that if you put a speaker in parallel with a
> load that is but a small fraction of an ohm no significant
> sound will come from that speaker. How could it when the
> vast bulk of the current flow is heading through that
> borderline short?

**Go and study up on Thevenin's Theorem and get back to me. However, that is 
not the issue. And you (should) know it. The poster who began this whole 
fiasco, which allowed you to demonstrate your incredible lack of knowledge 
said nothing about the sound coming from the speaker with the short on the 
speaker cable. I explained to you at the time (an explanation which you 
ridiculed, BTW) that it was highly liklely that the protection system was 
not activated until moderate levels (just as the poster suggested) because 
all the other channels were still operating. I patiently explained to you 
that this was, indeed, very possible, given the likely protection systems 
used in most commercial amplifiers. You denied that my explanation made any 
sense. 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. 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.

>
>> >> **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
>> >> amplifiers I referred you to.
>
>> > Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at
>> > least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say
>> > otherwise, you are a con artist.
>
>> **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.

 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.

>
>> >> Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
>> >> engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how 
>> >> amplifiers
>> >> actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you.
>
>> > I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like
>> > you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds
>> > superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales
>> > scam.
>
>> **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.

 Good for
> it. Glad we have reached this agreement.

**Don't count your chickens.

>
>> >> >> Is that opposed to
>> >> >> retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?
>
>> >> > At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
>> >> > audible advantage over thick lamp cord.
>>
>> >> **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.

 Just
> how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way.

**Is that a question, Mr Professional Writer?

>
>> >>  At least I do not
>> >> > con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
>> >> > fairy.
>
>> >> **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write.
>
>> > Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case,
>> > getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a
>> > hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me.
>
>> **I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact.
>
> Actually, you are getting into a pissing contest here that
> is doing you not a lot of good out there in the business
> world. Believe me, you have a lot more to lose here than I.

**I doubt it.

>
>> >> Yet you have no in-depth
>> >> knowledge about the topic.
>
>> > I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action.
>
>> **You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who 
>> actually
>> know their business, however.
>
> Yeah, and that ain't you.

**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. 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.

>
>> > Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
>> > are you sure you care to continue?
>
>> **I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of 
>> yourself.
>
> Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever.

**Very likely true. You are already a laughing stock. You can't sink much 
lower.

 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. I will continue to attack, until you admit your mistakes and 
apologise. I will not stop.

>
>> >> All you understand is the superficial stuff.
>
>> > For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial
>> > stuff."
>
>> **Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will 
>> be
>> fine.
>
> Common sense works better.

**Your lack of evidence is duly noted. And expected.

>
>> >> >> You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.
>
>> >> > This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
>> >> > that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
>> >> > qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
>> >> > versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
>> >> > because there is something seriously wrong with it.
>
>> >> **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
>> >> technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form 
>> >> others.
>
>> > 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?

 What else
> do you want other than they all sounded the same? Actually,
> the Son of Ampzilla unit I recently reviewed was
> bulletproof. However, with normal speaker loads it sounded
> no better than a rather old Yamaha integrated amp I had on
> hand. Admittedly, the speaker load was not particularly
> demanding.
>
>> >> You
>> >> have no experience with the amp in question anyway.
>
>> > 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.

 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.

>
>> >> >> Go study up on the Dewey
>> >> >> Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back 
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> us.
>
>> >> > Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
>> >> > cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?
>
>> >> **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments 
>> >> about
>> >> audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.
>
>> > I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is
>> > more important than the ability to spout technical jargon
>> > and rave about one's experience repairing and installing
>> > gear.
>
>> **It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when 
>> turned
>> up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is 
>> sadly
>> lacking.
>
> 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.


 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).

>
>> > OK, here is your chance to repent.
>
>> **Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you
>> feel necessary.
>
> Just follow the guide I wrote below.
>
>>  Admit that all good amps
>> > sound the same up to their respective clipping points when
>> > driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio
>> > applications good,
>
>> **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?


>
> The funny thing about you is that you probably sell people
> speakers that require an amp like yours.

**Wrong. Again.

 You basically force
> people into a situation where they have to purchase an
> exotic amp to power those oddball speaker loads.

**Supposition, based on a faulty line of logic. Your usual stock-in-trade.

 Yeah, I am
> sure you do not do this all the time, but when the
> opportunity knocks you step up to the plate and take a swing
> at the ball.
>
>>  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.

 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.

 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. 
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.

>
>>  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.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au