🚀 go-pugleaf

"Howard Ferstler" <ferstle@attglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:42E51F57.FC397BD9@attglobal.net...
> 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.

**Excellent!

 Sorry to
> have pulled your chain so hard,

**Your apology is accepted.

 although I still disagree
> with you emphatically about that amp of yours, as well as
> about wires.


**You dissagree with mathematics, physics and something you have no 
experience with? Curious.

>
> 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.

**And how do you imagine I felt, after you continually berated me, in spite 
of my education and experience?

>
> Ironically, I wonder what Pierce thinks of your opinion
> regarding that special amp of yours or the effects of
> speaker wires?

**I am absolutely certain that Mr Pierce would consider the maths involved 
and agree 100% with my opinion about wires. As for amplifiers, I am equally 
certain that Mr Pierce would either not pass judgement on a product without 
first examining it, or carefully considering the physics involved. Of 
course, that is my guess. Mr Pierce may have a different take on things. In 
any case, your strawman is duly noted.

 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 doubt that Mr Pierce would be inclined to comment on anything he has no 
direct experience with. That is just common-sense. I do not, for one 
microsecond, consider that Mr Pierce agrees or dissagrees with my thoughts 
on it. I, therefore, conclude that your congratulations are somewhat 
premature.


>
>> > 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.

**Correct. However, there are a number of issues, you have not addressed.

>
>>  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.

**No. There is no mystery.

>
>> > 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?

**None. Nor, given your comments here, am I likely to, anytime soon. I have 
much to learn and I can't see what I could learn from anything your write.

>
>> >> **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?

**Coherency, for one.

>
>>  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."

**If I felt the need to do that. I don't feel the need and I don't have the 
time.

>
>> > 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%.

**Now we're getting somewhere.

>
>> >> **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.

**Thank you. Apology accepted.


> However, I do not apologize in the least for what I said
> regarding your special amp and the impact of special wires.

**You should. You should, at the very least, examine the maths, before you 
comment.

>
>> > 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?

**Not relevant. Under certain circumstances, a listener may cause demands to 
be placed on an amplifier which requires it to deliver maximum power from 
all channels. The amplifier should be able to deliver it's rated power. If I 
buy a car rated at 150kW and find that it can only deliver 120kW, I'd take 
it back.

>
>> >> >> **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.

**Nonsense.


-- 
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au