wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:30:50 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news:9gj6o1hhd2kgrsi5ug08q9v4p2ujqvp0m3@4ax. com...
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:48:13 GMT, wrote:

When the juice is there, the sound is there. Just
because there are models that don't have the good design required,
doesn't
mean that all tube amps are bad.

I would never say all are bad, but their cost vs. performance ration
is
not
good, and there are many really expensive ones that are just awful.
WAVAC.

When you listened to this amp, what was it about the sound that made
you think that is was awful? And what speakers did you use when you
auditioned it?

I have not auditioned it and never will, I already know what
distortion
sounds like and I want no more of it.

Well then, isn't it reckless, nay, foolish, to judge a piece of gear
without doing a DBT/ABX on it? At least according to your spirited
defense of DBT/ABX.

He read that a person did a DBT on items A and B and they sounded the
same,
to maybe one, two or three listeners, so he assumes tha D,E,F,G,H
I,J,K,L,M,N,
O,P,Q,R,S,T,U.V.W.X.Y.and Z all sound the same to everyone.
Quite the scientisit!!!!

Not a scientist, just somebody waiting for someone to show that the
evidence from the DBTs done so far have errors. The people who use ABX
and ABC/HR have shown repeatedly that there is a threshold for what is
audible and once that threshold is met, differences in measurements can
be found but not heard.

Yes, not a scientisit, and not one to trust his own senses, either.

Not when it's a matter of scientific fact that human hearing is easily
fooled by non-sonic influences.

As it is at home, during everyday listening.
I'll pick what sounds best in that environment.