🚀 go-pugleaf

Trevor Wilson wrote:
> 
> "Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:42DEF6A5.2E68B084@attglobal.net...

>  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.

I did, and they, and you are right and I was wrong. Sorry to
have pulled your chain so hard, although I still disagree
with you emphatically about that amp of yours, as well as
about wires.

Incidentally, given how I have treated you I cannot fault
you for striking back hard. Also, Pinkerton's reply was to
the point and quite civil, and I acknowledge that he was on
the mark.

Pierce was on the mark, too, and with a degree of expertise
that would honor a college professor. Unfortunately, the
latter part of his response was not much more than a cheap
shot that I resent considerably.

Ironically, I wonder what Pierce thinks of your opinion
regarding that special amp of yours or the effects of
speaker wires? While he had an apparent field day insulting
me (after posting that to the point and expertly written
explanation of his), he has said nothing at all about your
claims regarding that special amp. Given that he has
bothered to read all of my comments, I assume that means he
agrees with you about its abilities. Congratulations.
 
> > 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. 

I agree. The direct/reflection concept misses the point of
what speakers should be able to do with standard recordings
in home-listening situations. It still works for some
people, obviously, and does so because it fakes things
rather nicely, at least with some recordings.

> 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."

Actually, the pair I reviewed were not in my main listening
room, which is 18 x 22 feet, with an 8.5 foot ceiling.
Instead, they were installed in a rather large room at a
friend's place (21 x 31 feet, with a 8-10 foot cathedral
ceiling) and in that area they actually sounded quite good
with certain program materials. Note that he located them
several feet out from the front wall, instead of a foot or
two away. I would have trouble living with them, myself, but
they certainly sounded better in that room than some of the
other speakers I have auditioned in my own main room.

> >> **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.

No doubt, given your comments on that very special super amp
you promote.

> >> > 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.

Nobody is correct about everything 100% of the time, and I
admit that I got off on the wrong track considerably when it
came to the issue of speaker-wire shorts. 

However, I have reviewed a number of amps (subjective
reviews, just like the tweakos do, but with very different
conclusions) and I continue to marvel that you say that the
reason so many "conventional" models sound the same, with
identical distortions, is their lack of a proper NFB design.
Supposedly, your amp corrects this problem and it sounds
more accurate than all other amps (be they rather expensive
or rather cheap, like those in typical receivers) that have
different topologies but do not follow the NFB structure of
your amp.

>  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.

I think that you make the job of an amp much more mysterious
than it happens to be.
 
> > 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.

In many cases, even those who do not brag to others will
stand in front of their philosophical mirror and feel good
about themselves. Sometimes not bragging makes them feel
even better.

> > 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.

The books are guidelines for newcomers and are designed to
clue the reader into proper ways to sanely purchase gear and
also deal with people like you. In any case, just how many
of my books have you even looked over? 

> >> **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?

I really cannot think of any. I suppose some people like to
listen primarily in the direct field, but the Lipshitz paper
indicated that this is where the line-source speaker really
goes to hell.

> >> 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.

What things?

>  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.

Some people like the direct-field sound. The problem is that
fixed-length line sources are at their weakest under those
conditions.

> >>  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.

This assumes you have read the books and articles and have
spotted errors that show I was conning people: readers and
publishers.

> > 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.

Well, reading them would give you the opportunity to post
quotes from the books and then demolish them. "On page XX
Ferstler claims that people should do XXXXX, and this is
patently wrong. Here's why."

> > 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.

I agree 100%.
 
> >> **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.

Actually, I do now apologize for being wrong about the
short/speaker sound issue, and attacking you in that area.
However, I do not apologize in the least for what I said
regarding your special amp and the impact of special wires.

> > 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. 

And I have stated just that in several of my speaker reviews
and commentary articles. I cut speaker builders a lot of
slack. Speaker sound can indeed interact strongly with
taste.

> >> 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.

Assuming a good receiver with at least 100 wpc on those 6 or
7 channels, what civilized person listens that loud?

> >> >> **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.

Go glassy-eyed audio buffs, rejecting a "recommendation"
from a high-end audio salesman is practically an admission
of having a tin ear. No buff would chance that, and every
slick salesman knows this.

Howard Ferstler