"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:23:25 GMT, dizzy wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:03:37 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:57:10 GMT, wrote:

Considering your inability to get even the most basic facts correct
about the thing, YES, I have my doubts that a: the distortion is not
audible to you and b: you might not find it any different than a
Yamaha amp.

I got the price wrong, the rest of the information is correct.
I have listened to tube amps before, all of them measured better than
the
WAVAC.
All of them sounded worse that any SS amp I've ever heard..

But you didn't do DBTs. Once again, you've now conclusively dismissed
the need the dbts.

Yes, when the difference is obvious, as has been stated countless
times.

Unproven until a dbt is done, according to guys like you.

Why keep repeating the same lie? It has been stated repeatedly, that DBTs
are for subtle differences.

If your
posit is true, then why not "prove" it? If it's so obvious, then it
should also be obvious in a dbt or abx.

Exactly although it still would be unneccessary since the differences are
practically off the chart.

If Mike didn't do a dbt, then
it's obvious that he was "peeking". Whatever happened to the sighted
bias that you guys are always foaming at the mouth about?


As is the case with speakers, differences between the WAVAC and any decent
amp are obvious and a DBT would be completely redundant.

Since he's obviously biased (pun intended) against tube amps, it's
unclear whether or not bias might not be the controlling factor.

Not all tube amps, there are some that can be quite nice. SET's are not
among them.


Way to go, sport!

Idiot.

Liar is more accurate.