Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
dippyborg whined: Idiot. Bicycle grease. Idiot. Bicycle grease. Idiot. Bicycle grease. Idiot. Bicycle grease. .. .. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies | Audio Opinions | |||
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies | Pro Audio | |||
we found 20 new TUBE AMPLIFIER companies | Vacuum Tubes | |||
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 1/5) | Car Audio | |||
World Tube Audio Newsletter 06/05 | Vacuum Tubes |