Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers




dippyborg whined:

Idiot.


Bicycle grease.

Idiot.


Bicycle grease.

Idiot.


Bicycle grease.

Idiot.


Bicycle grease.



..
..

  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


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.


  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
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.


"At least" Arny sometimes listens to a sound file through some other
piece of inferior audio equipment!!

Are you seriously trying get me to beleive that double digit distortion
is not audible, or that an ABX comparison of the WAVAC is even necessary
to know that it sounds different from other amps?

you won't listen to anything, WAVAC, or anything else.

I listen to speakers, since they make the biggest difference.
I don't listen to something that measures as poorly as the WAVAC, I'm
looking for Hi-Fi, not room heaters or boat anchors.


You're looking for Ferstler's proverbial toasters.
No need to taste the toast!


  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


wrote in message
nk.net...


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..


Which tube amps have you lstenend to?


  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:41:28 GMT, wrote:

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.


You mean like reading instead of listening, right?


Would that be reading "specs", hehehe?




  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
nk.net

Why in the world would I be envious of something that can
be outperformed by any SS amp?


Because Weil tries to play the "envey card" .....


if "ireny" killed.


  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"dizzy" wrote in message
...
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.


Yes, even between ss amps with very similar 'specs'.


  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers

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. 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. 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?

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

Way to go, sport!


Idiot.


My my, such a mouth. No wonder you call yourself dizzy.

  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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.

You have the right to be wrong.


  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

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?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.


So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.


How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a DBT
is unnecessary?





  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:
If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of **** from the review
measurements, then you have no business discussing it.


So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!


Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making for some
time:


At no point in the post did I state what a charlatan you are.

that reduced to its bare essence, the "objectivist" attitude to
amplifiers is that "amplifiers all sound identical except when they
don't," which is hardly helpful. :-)

And for umpteenth time you prove me and every other critic of yours to be
100% correct. You are a fraud and a liar.

The facts have been stated repeatedly regarding what constitutes gear that
sounds the same. The WAVAC is very far outside those criteria.

Thanks again for confirming why you are not to be trusted.


  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making
for some time: that reduced to its bare essence, the
"objectivist" attitude to amplifiers is that "amplifiers
all sound identical except when they don't," which is
hardly helpful. :-)


Just goes to show how non-helpful things get when Atkinson tries to put
words in his opponents mouths.

We can go futher a lot Atkinson's staement in some very helpful ways.

For example, it's very likely that 90% or more of the SS amplifiers in
Stereophile's RCL could *not* be distinguished by Stereophile's reviewers,
based only on sound quality.

Based on the hearing ability of his reviewers it's unlikely they can hear
much of anything.


  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike McKelvy endorses WAVAC amplifiers


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Mike McKelvy has now endorsed WAVAC ampliers for those people who like
tube amplifiers and have the wherewithal to purchase them.

Especially if you like oodles of distortion. Come to think of it that
pretty much descibes you.


Not only are they selling for half of his stated idea of their cost,
he says that they are like every tube amp he's ever heard, only more
so, and he has found tube amps to offer a significant difference over
the standard SS amp.

Please provide the quote for that. I have said many times that tube amps
can and sometimes obvioulsly do sound different from SS, SET's being the
prime example.

And since he's now on record as saying that you don't even have to
listen to them and that you don't need a dbt or abx trial to
confidently choose them, you can feel confident that they will offer
you the ultimate in tube amplification.

You should work for Atkinson, neither of you seems to be able to tell the
truth.


  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
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.

Way to go, sport!

Way to lie ****head!


  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"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.




  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike McKelvy endorses WAVAC amplifiers

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:20:35 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
Mike McKelvy has now endorsed WAVAC ampliers for those people who like
tube amplifiers and have the wherewithal to purchase them.

Especially if you like oodles of distortion. Come to think of it that
pretty much descibes you.


Not only are they selling for half of his stated idea of their cost,
he says that they are like every tube amp he's ever heard, only more
so, and he has found tube amps to offer a significant difference over
the standard SS amp.

Please provide the quote for that. I have said many times that tube amps
can and sometimes obvioulsly do sound different from SS, SET's being the
prime example.


You just said it.

You also said this:

"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.."

If by worse, you didn't mean different, then you might wish to
explain...

And since he's now on record as saying that you don't even have to
listen to them and that you don't need a dbt or abx trial to
confidently choose them, you can feel confident that they will offer
you the ultimate in tube amplification.

You should work for Atkinson, neither of you seems to be able to tell the
truth.


I would suggest that Mr. Atkinson might find this libelous.

BTW, are you now saying that you DO need to perform a dbt or abx
trial? Which is it, Mr. McKelvy? You seem completely confused at this
moment.

  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

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@4a x.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.

You have the right to be wrong.


And you DON'T have the right to assume
whether I do or do not hear differences between various equipment.


  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


wrote in message
ink.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

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?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as
anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.


So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.


How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a
DBT is unnecessary?


That's what I say, too!
The differences between some ss cd players are gross.


  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:11:45 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

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?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.


So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.


How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a DBT
is unnecessary?


How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that you are
wrong? A dbt will surely confirm what you are saying *if* you have the
auditory acuity to discern such differences. This isn't an a priori
situation, because you haven't proven your ability in this area (who
knows what kind of hearing abnormalities you have? Who knows whether
your anti-tube bias is so overwhelming that you would automatically
hear a difference, even if there were NO difference (perhaps you might
THINK you were listening to a tube amp when in fact you weren't).

Now, if you were talking to yourself, I could have no argument. But
you are making statements to others, and you need to hold yourself to
the same standards that you hold others.

Get a properly proctored test and maybe we'll talk.

  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:22:36 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
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.

Way to go, sport!


Way to lie ****head!

So now you're saying that you DO need dbts to compare the WAVAC with
SS amps?

You seem a bit addled at this point. You should probably go to bed.




  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:27:25 GMT, wrote:

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.


That's not what you said earlier. You said ALL tube amps sounded worse
than every SS amp you had ever heard. So the amp could sound WORSE but
"quite nice". Interesting. So you agree that tube amps don't have to
"measure" better to sound nice.

Looks like you're making progress.
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers



John Atkinson said:

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been making for some
time: that reduced to its bare essence, the "objectivist" attitude to
amplifiers is that "amplifiers all sound identical except when they
don't," which is hardly helpful. :-)


I will note, Mr. Tweako-Freako Editor in Chief, that you have plagiarized
one of Tom Nousiane's pithy pearls of perspicacity without due and proper
attribution. Shame on you. :-)






  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike McKelvy endorses WAVAC amplifiers


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:20:35 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
Mike McKelvy has now endorsed WAVAC ampliers for those people who like
tube amplifiers and have the wherewithal to purchase them.

Especially if you like oodles of distortion. Come to think of it that
pretty much descibes you.


Not only are they selling for half of his stated idea of their cost,
he says that they are like every tube amp he's ever heard, only more
so, and he has found tube amps to offer a significant difference over
the standard SS amp.

Please provide the quote for that. I have said many times that tube amps
can and sometimes obvioulsly do sound different from SS, SET's being the
prime example.


You just said it.

You also said this:

"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.."

If by worse, you didn't mean different, then you might wish to
explain...



And since he's now on record as saying that you don't even have to
listen to them and that you don't need a dbt or abx trial to
confidently choose them, you can feel confident that they will offer
you the ultimate in tube amplification.

You should work for Atkinson, neither of you seems to be able to tell the
truth.


I would suggest that Mr. Atkinson might find this libelous.


Since both of you have a habit of distorting what other people say, I doubt
it.

BTW, are you now saying that you DO need to perform a dbt or abx
trial? Which is it, Mr. McKelvy? You seem completely confused at this
moment.

The only one confused is you. I've stated many times when an ABX comparison
is useful.

For something like the WAVAC it would not be, since given how it measures,
you'd have to be deaf not to notice how much different it sounds from
regular amps.



  #64   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

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?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as
anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.


How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a
DBT is unnecessary?


That's what I say, too!
The differences between some ss cd players are gross.

Lack of data to support your position noted.


  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:11:45 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

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?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as
anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.


How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a
DBT
is unnecessary?


How many times do you have to have it pointed out to you that you are
wrong?


Stated many times, confirmed, not so much.

A dbt will surely confirm what you are saying *if* you have the
auditory acuity to discern such differences.


Who do you think is unable to hear 10% THD?

This isn't an a priori
situation, because you haven't proven your ability in this area (who
knows what kind of hearing abnormalities you have?


My doctor tells me my hearingis fine. My own listening to test tones tells
me it's fine.
If you wish to hire someone at your expense to give me a hearing test, go
right ahead.

Who knows whether
your anti-tube bias is so overwhelming that you would automatically
hear a difference, even if there were NO difference (perhaps you might
THINK you were listening to a tube amp when in fact you weren't).

It's not a bias, it's a prefernce, I prefer the most accurate and reliable
equipment I can get. I have heard tube gear and sometimes it sounds quite
nice, I've heard other tube gear that sounded awful.

Now, if you were talking to yourself, I could have no argument. But
you are making statements to others, and you need to hold yourself to
the same standards that you hold others.

Get a properly proctored test and maybe we'll talk.

Again, when talking about the amount of distortion present in a WAVAC amp,
there would be vastly more people who could hear the differnce than could
not. It is so far out of the range of what is considered high fidelity or
low distortion, that it's difference is obvious.




  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
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.


"At least" Arny sometimes listens to a sound file through some other
piece of inferior audio equipment!!

Are you seriously trying get me to beleive that double digit distortion
is not audible, or that an ABX comparison of the WAVAC is even
necessary to know that it sounds different from other amps?

you won't listen to anything, WAVAC, or anything else.

I listen to speakers, since they make the biggest difference.
I don't listen to something that measures as poorly as the WAVAC, I'm
looking for Hi-Fi, not room heaters or boat anchors.


You're looking for Ferstler's proverbial toasters.
No need to taste the toast!

Not when you already know it's poisoned.


  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:04:09 GMT, wrote:

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?

Not when the differences are as gross as they are with a WAVAC as
anyone
can
see from the Stereophile measurements. Plenty of audible distortion.
$300,000.00 for an amp that can't produce more than 2 watts of output
power
before 1% THD.
http://stereophile.com/tubepoweramps...ac/index5.html
For that much distortion a simple A/B test would be sufficient.

Which you haven't even done. So you haven't even done the minimum.


Because there's no need. If you can't tell that the WAVAC is a piece
of
**** from the review measurements, then you have no business discussing
it.

So, you've now conclusively PROVED that there's no need for double
blind testing. Thank you very much!

I win.

How many times have I and others said that when differences are gross, a
DBT is unnecessary?


That's what I say, too!
The differences between some ss cd players are gross.

Lack of data to support your position noted.


You don't need to ABX when the differences are gross!


  #68   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:27:25 GMT, wrote:

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.


That's not what you said earlier. You said ALL tube amps sounded worse
than every SS amp you had ever heard.

So the amp could sound WORSE but
"quite nice".


As in less accurate.

Interesting. So you agree that tube amps don't have to
"measure" better to sound nice.

Nice is not always the same as accurate. I don't begrudge people likeing
tube amps, only when they say they are better in some technical kind of way.

Looks like you're making progress.


Nothing has changed.


  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:22:36 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
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.

Way to go, sport!


Way to lie ****head!


So now you're saying that you DO need dbts to compare the WAVAC with
SS amps?

You seem a bit addled at this point. You should probably go to bed.


I should probably not discus things with someone who has such a hard time
keeping up.

Amps ar any gear that measures like the WAVAC need not be compared via DBT,
since the differences are so glaringly obvious.


  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
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.


"At least" Arny sometimes listens to a sound file through some other
piece of inferior audio equipment!!

Are you seriously trying get me to beleive that double digit
distortion is not audible, or that an ABX comparison of the WAVAC is
even necessary to know that it sounds different from other amps?

you won't listen to anything, WAVAC, or anything else.

I listen to speakers, since they make the biggest difference.
I don't listen to something that measures as poorly as the WAVAC, I'm
looking for Hi-Fi, not room heaters or boat anchors.


You're looking for Ferstler's proverbial toasters.
No need to taste the toast!

Not when you already know it's poisoned.


Thanlks for admitting that your position is: when evaluating any piece of
equipment, all you have to do is read thespecs and that there
is no need to listen to the equipment.




  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike McKelvy endorses WAVAC amplifiers


wrote in message
nk.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:20:35 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
Mike McKelvy has now endorsed WAVAC ampliers for those people who like
tube amplifiers and have the wherewithal to purchase them.

Especially if you like oodles of distortion. Come to think of it that
pretty much descibes you.


Not only are they selling for half of his stated idea of their cost,
he says that they are like every tube amp he's ever heard, only more
so, and he has found tube amps to offer a significant difference over
the standard SS amp.

Please provide the quote for that. I have said many times that tube amps
can and sometimes obvioulsly do sound different from SS, SET's being the
prime example.


You just said it.

You also said this:

"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.."

If by worse, you didn't mean different, then you might wish to
explain...



And since he's now on record as saying that you don't even have to
listen to them and that you don't need a dbt or abx trial to
confidently choose them, you can feel confident that they will offer
you the ultimate in tube amplification.

You should work for Atkinson, neither of you seems to be able to tell the
truth.


I would suggest that Mr. Atkinson might find this libelous.


Since both of you have a habit of distorting what other people say, I
doubt it.

BTW, are you now saying that you DO need to perform a dbt or abx
trial? Which is it, Mr. McKelvy? You seem completely confused at this
moment.

The only one confused is you. I've stated many times when an ABX
comparison is useful.

For something like the WAVAC it would not be, since given how it measures,
you'd have to be deaf not to notice how much different it sounds from
regular amps.


TSk, tsk, we must IMMEDIATELY order a test
for Mikey, those pesky listener biases are taking over!


  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers



Clyde Slick said:

Thanlks for admitting that your position is: when evaluating any piece of
equipment, all you have to do is read thespecs and that there
is no need to listen to the equipment.


Mickey is the second 'borg to admit to that shortcoming. The first was the
jejune Sillybot, and it happened a matter of mere weeks ago.

Time was the 'borgs loved to posture about Their great expertise and vast
knowledge. They used to boast that Their command of the marketplace was so
supernal, They could instantly match up a set of specs with the
corresponding audible performance in their magnificently detailed data
banks. Good to see They have come off that ridiculous posturing and
admitted what we all knew -- that They are ignorant, envy-riddled poseurs
who are simply afraid of all luxury goods, including audio.




  #73   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


wrote in message
ink.net...

Nice is not always the same as accurate. I don't begrudge people likeing
tube amps, only when they say they are better in some technical kind of
way.


Lordy!
That is NOT what we have been saying all along!
We just say that a number of people appreciate
the way they sound, in general, and that they percieve
that using them results in a presentation more to their
perception of what real, live music, sounds like, to them.



  #74   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mike McKelvy endorses WAVAC amplifiers

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:54:36 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

And since he's now on record as saying that you don't even have to
listen to them and that you don't need a dbt or abx trial to
confidently choose them, you can feel confident that they will offer
you the ultimate in tube amplification.

You should work for Atkinson, neither of you seems to be able to tell the
truth.


I would suggest that Mr. Atkinson might find this libelous.


Since both of you have a habit of distorting what other people say, I doubt
it.

BTW, are you now saying that you DO need to perform a dbt or abx
trial? Which is it, Mr. McKelvy? You seem completely confused at this
moment.

The only one confused is you. I've stated many times when an ABX comparison
is useful.

For something like the WAVAC it would not be, since given how it measures,
you'd have to be deaf not to notice how much different it sounds from
regular amps.


Unproven.

And glad to see that you've let the magazines off the hook when it
comes to dbts, since they're mostly unnecessary.

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:55:30 GMT, wrote:

That's what I say, too!
The differences between some ss cd players are gross.

Lack of data to support your position noted.


It's as supported as your claims about the potential results of a
WAVAC dbt.


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:16:42 GMT, wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:27:25 GMT, wrote:

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.


That's not what you said earlier. You said ALL tube amps sounded worse
than every SS amp you had ever heard.

So the amp could sound WORSE but
"quite nice".


As in less accurate.

Interesting. So you agree that tube amps don't have to
"measure" better to sound nice.

Nice is not always the same as accurate. I don't begrudge people likeing
tube amps, only when they say they are better in some technical kind of way.


How many people say THAT? Most say, "I think it sounds more musical",
or "SS sounds more sterile to me", or I prefer the sound of tube amps
to SS amps generally". Just let someone say that and then you've got
Arnold Krueger and guys like you dumping all over them.
  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers

On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:18:16 GMT, wrote:

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

Way to go, sport!

Way to lie ****head!


So now you're saying that you DO need dbts to compare the WAVAC with
SS amps?

You seem a bit addled at this point. You should probably go to bed.


I should probably not discus things with someone who has such a hard time
keeping up.

Amps ar any gear that measures like the WAVAC need not be compared via DBT,
since the differences are so glaringly obvious.


It was YOU who claimed that I was "lying" when I said, "But you didn't
do DBTs. Once again, you've now conclusively dismissed the need the
(sic) dbts".

If I was lying, then you must be advocating the use of dbts for the
WAVAC.

Boy, are you addled. Maybe you need to check your patch and see if
it's past its expiration date.
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers

wrote in message
ink.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com

Mr. McKelvy neatly illustrates a point I have been
making for some time: that reduced to its bare essence,
the "objectivist" attitude to amplifiers is that
"amplifiers all sound identical except when they
don't," which is hardly helpful. :-)


Just goes to show how non-helpful things get when
Atkinson tries to put words in his opponents mouths.

We can go futher a lot Atkinson's staement in some very
helpful ways. For example, it's very likely that 90% or
more of the SS
amplifiers in Stereophile's RCL could *not* be
distinguished by Stereophile's reviewers, based only on
sound quality.

Based on the hearing ability of his reviewers it's
unlikely they can hear much of anything.


I hear that the whole Stereophile crowd never tires of
hearing the sounds of their voices. ;-)


  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

I hear that the whole Stereophile crowd never tires of hearing the sounds
of their voices. ;-)


Not as much as they enjoy listening to your tape.


  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default the are only two kinds of amplifiers



Clyde Slick said:

Not as much as they enjoy listening to your tape.


"Bull****! Bull****! Bull****!"



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies World Tube Audio Audio Opinions 0 October 23rd 05 11:28 PM
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies World Tube Audio Pro Audio 0 October 23rd 05 11:28 PM
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies World Tube Audio Vacuum Tubes 0 October 23rd 05 11:26 PM
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 1/5) Ian D. Bjorhovde Car Audio 0 August 9th 05 07:30 AM
World Tube Audio Newsletter 06/05 World Tube Audio Vacuum Tubes 0 May 15th 05 11:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:44 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"