1. tube amps
2. harsh sounding amps that give me a headache (solid state)


I have even heard that some people will pay more than $200 for a solid state
amp?

crazy!!

"the barefoot sage" wrote in message
...

1. tube amps
High output impedance, grossly over priced, distortion devices

2. harsh sounding amps that give me a headache (solid state)
Accurate, low output impedance low distortion devices.

I have even heard that some people will pay more than $200 for a solid
state amp?

crazy!!
Only the ones that aren't smart enough to purchase a Behringer A500 160wpc
Signature amp for $179.99.

Still not as crazy as spending anything over $12.00 for a glowing bottle
device.

"the barefoot sage" wrote in message
...

1. tube amps
2. harsh sounding amps that give me a headache (solid state)


I have even heard that some people will pay more than $200 for a solid
state amp?

crazy!!

You haven't heard the best. Silicon can rival thermionics today, and that's
not the way it used to be. I love the sound of tubes, but a properly
designed transistor amp will run right along with the tubes today. I heard
this in the form of a Levinson setup- it was some symphony stuff I never
heard before, and I walked in on this setup with no expectations. The first
thing I noticed was that the orchestra was miked from above. I heard the
actual sound of being above the orchestra, hanging above it- the effect was
just mesmerizing. It was then that I realized that tubes and transistors
have to occupy the same landscape- that of extreme accuracy. The solid-state
amp I heard was so transparent, so melodical, so true-to-life, I was just
blown away.

But tubes are awesome, never diss the vacuum. Transistors can hold their own
these days, if you are willing to pay for it. However I will always fall
back on my old Dyna ST70. There's something about it- can't put my finger on
it but it is just nice. I don't have the means to acquire some Klipsch
corner horns or some radical plastic/fiberglass horn thing, but I will still
make time for the Dyna. Vinyl and tubes, that is what music is made of to
me. Maybe I'm just old and stuck in my ways, but I've heard what's out
there, and I like my tubes. If I could drop thousands on some Levinson stuff
I would. Don't get me wrong. But there is so much joy in records and
glass....I just can't see wanting for more.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"the barefoot sage" wrote in message
...

1. tube amps
High output impedance, grossly over priced, distortion devices

2. harsh sounding amps that give me a headache (solid state)
Accurate, low output impedance low distortion devices.

I have even heard that some people will pay more than $200 for a solid
state amp?

crazy!!
Only the ones that aren't smart enough to purchase a Behringer A500 160wpc
Signature amp for $179.99.

I have Berry speakers, the B2030A's. They rock, but only for production
purposes. They sound crisp, sharp, detailed, but they lack that music that I
want to hear. Very loud they are, but not so nice to hear. They rock my
world and make my neighbors complain but do not rock my soul.

Tube amps are not necessarily distortion generators- a properly designed amp
will be flat and juicy. Get back to your remedial electronics- it's all
about voltage and the power supply. I don't hear any egregious distortion
with any old broken down tube amp that has a decent supply and good
connections to the rails. 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. What do you think guitars play through?
Mostly tube stuff. Tubes will be around for many years. In fact they have a
great use in the scientific world, in the form of photon collectors. Tubes
are going to be around for many years to come, and you would be well advised
to get on board with thermionic technology.

And that's all I have to say about that. ;-)

"tubeguy" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
ink.net...

"the barefoot sage" wrote in message
...

1. tube amps
High output impedance, grossly over priced, distortion devices

2. harsh sounding amps that give me a headache (solid state)
Accurate, low output impedance low distortion devices.

I have even heard that some people will pay more than $200 for a solid
state amp?

crazy!!
Only the ones that aren't smart enough to purchase a Behringer A500
160wpc Signature amp for $179.99.

I have Berry speakers, the B2030A's. They rock, but only for production
purposes. They sound crisp, sharp, detailed, but they lack that music that
I want to hear. Very loud they are, but not so nice to hear. They rock my
world and make my neighbors complain but do not rock my soul.

Tube amps are not necessarily distortion generators- a properly designed
amp will be flat and juicy.

Possible, but there seems to be these SET thingies.

Get back to your remedial electronics- it's all
about voltage and the power supply. I don't hear any egregious distortion
with any old broken down tube amp that has a decent supply and good
connections to the rails.

Part of the attraction to tube amps, is that when they clip, they do it in a
way that is much less harsh sounding than a SS amp. This is because tubes
driven to clipping produce sine waves that still look like sine waves. SS
amps by comparison just chop off the top and bottom of the wave, result,
sounds like hell. Fortunately, SS power is much cheaper and more reliable.

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.

What do you think guitars play through?

That's different, that's for making music not playing it back. Thye use the
distortion produced by tubes being clipped to get a particular kind of
sound. If you want to hear it exactly as the guitarist played it, it's
better to do it with SS.

Mostly tube stuff. Tubes will be around for many years. In fact they have
a great use in the scientific world, in the form of photon collectors.
Tubes are going to be around for many years to come, and you would be well
advised to get on board with thermionic technology.

And that's all I have to say about that. ;-)
Enjoy what you like.

"the barefoot sage" wrote in message

1. tube amps
2. harsh sounding amps that give me a headache (solid
state)

I have even heard that some people will pay more than
$200 for a solid state amp?

crazy!!

Troll, troll, troll.

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?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:58:54 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

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?

Mike, I'm still interested in the question. Care to elaborate?

tubeguy wrote:
"the barefoot sage" wrote in message
...

1. tube amps
2. harsh sounding amps that give me a headache (solid state)

Bull****.


You haven't heard the best. Silicon can rival thermionics today, and that's
not the way it used to be.

This is true. Some solid state amps are very good sounding. Most use
moderate amounts of NFB and simple circuits, relatively speaking.
Twenty years ago there were few if any first rate solid atate amps
commercally available, possibly excepting Threshold.

I love the sound of tubes, but a properly
designed transistor amp will run right along with the tubes today. I heard
this in the form of a Levinson setup- it was some symphony stuff I never
heard before, and I walked in on this setup with no expectations. The first
thing I noticed was that the orchestra was miked from above. I heard the
actual sound of being above the orchestra, hanging above it- the effect was
just mesmerizing. It was then that I realized that tubes and transistors
have to occupy the same landscape- that of extreme accuracy. The solid-state
amp I heard was so transparent, so melodical, so true-to-life, I was just
blown away.

Hopefully he's better at amp design than sex. (Levinson authored a sex
manual with his then-wife, Kim Cattrall: they broke up soon
thereafter.)

But tubes are awesome, never diss the vacuum. Transistors can hold their own
these days, if you are willing to pay for it. However I will always fall
back on my old Dyna ST70. There's something about it- can't put my fingeron
it but it is just nice. I don't have the means to acquire some Klipsch
corner horns or some radical plastic/fiberglass horn thing, but I will still
make time for the Dyna.

The stock Dyna is a truly godawful amp. Modded ones can sound halfway
decent, but the limiting factor is the relatively poor OPTs. It is
impossible to build a really good tube amp around Dyna iron. The better
UTC, Acro or Peerless iron, or properly cloned Marantz or Freed
designs, can be the heart of world class tube amps. I have heard good
things about some Tamura and Lars Lundahl designs but no personal
experience.

Klipschhorns and the junior versions (La Scalas and Belle Klipsches)
can be had reasonable if you look. The price has started going up
because people use the Klipsch lowers with other midrange and tweeters
to produce listenable speakers. You could build your own if you were a
good carpenter, I mean it has to be easier than a Riva boat or a Falco!

This is true. Some solid state amps are very good sounding. Most use
moderate amounts of NFB and simple circuits, relatively speaking. Twenty
years ago there were few if any first rate solid atate amps commercally
available, possibly excepting Threshold.

I love the sound of tubes, but a properly
designed transistor amp will run right along with the tubes today. I
heard this in the form of a Levinson setup- it was some symphony stuff I
never heard before, and I walked in on this setup with no expectations.
The first thing I noticed was that the orchestra was miked from above. I
heard the actual sound of being above the orchestra, hanging above it-
the effect was just mesmerizing. It was then that I realized that tubes
and transistors have to occupy the same landscape- that of extreme
accuracy. The solid-state amp I heard was so transparent, so melodical,
so true-to-life, I was just blown away.
**Hopefully he's better at amp design than sex. (Levinson authored a
sex manual with his then-wife, Kim Cattrall: they broke up soon
thereafter.)
But tubes are awesome, never diss the vacuum. Transistors can hold their
own these days, if you are willing to pay for it. However I will always
fall back on my old Dyna ST70. There's something about it- can't put my
finger on it but it is just nice. I don't have the means to acquire some
Klipsch corner horns or some radical plastic/fiberglass horn thing, but
I will still make time for the Dyna.
**The stock Dyna is a truly godawful amp. Modded ones can sound
halfway decent, but the limiting factor is the relatively poor OPTs. It
is impossible to build a really good tube amp around Dyna iron. The
better UTC, Acro or Peerless iron, or properly cloned Marantz or Freed
designs, can be the heart of world class tube amps. I have heard good
things about some Tamura and Lars Lundahl designs but no personal
experience.
**Klipschhorns and the junior versions (La Scalas and Belle
Klipsches) can be had reasonable if you look. The price has started
going up because people use the Klipsch lowers with other midrange and
tweeters to produce listenable speakers. You could build your own if you
were a good carpenter, I mean it has to be easier than a Riva boat or a
Falco!
======================================
Threshold? I never even heard of Threshold 20 years ago. Of course,
folks like McIntosh made absolute crap 20 years ago, correct?

Klipschhorns, and the like I never cared for personally. I never heard a
one with what I felt was accurate, clean reproduction. They all sounded
colored to me. Sure, I've heard of people doing all sorts of mods to
them, but really, what's the point? Wouldn't it be better, and easier
to just buy a speaker that does things right in the first place? Mark

va boat or a
Falco!
======================================
Threshold? I never even heard of Threshold 20 years ago. Of course,
folks like McIntosh made absolute crap 20 years ago, correct?

Folks like McIntosh made what they have always made, attractively
packaged, great specs, relatively low build cost, basically high
feedback Class B PA-style amplifiers.


Klipschhorns, and the like I never cared for personally. I never heard a
one with what I felt was accurate, clean reproduction. They all sounded
colored to me. Sure, I've heard of people doing all sorts of mods to
them, but really, what's the point? Wouldn't it be better, and easier
to just buy a speaker that does things right in the first place?

Many people feel that Klipsches do things the right way, particularly
in the mid to upper bass regions. They have used phenolic diaphragm
horn drivers which were okay forty years ago but have been drastically
improved on.

I'll agree somewhat Bret, that yes, McIntosh perhaps is still in the
stone age, with their Class B Amps, their big ole potted, clunky, boxy
Transformers (Seems all have switched to Torroidal), VU Meters galore,
in which not too many amps I've ever seen other than them have them
anymore (Except maybe for the Audio Research Reference 600 if I can
recall)

Many of them you needed a fork lift to move, but I can think of a few
other personal fav amps that are basically no different when it comes to
weight (Levinson #33, Krell FPB-600, and 650)

I don't know if I'd call many of the Macs PA Amps, :-) but if you threw
$30-50K in my hands, I could probably think of a good 1/2 dozen Amps I'd
prefer over any the Macs, past, or present.

Same with the Klipschorns. If you gave me a pair, I don't think I'd be
throwing them in the alley, lol, and I'll agree that they were a
timeless design, one in which even JBL somewhat "copied" with Speakers
like their old Heartfield, and Paragon.

I've heard some Threshold Amps if I remember correctly, about 5 years
ago, at Audio Consultants in Chicago (T400 was one of the models I
think?). They were driving a pair of now discontinued Wilson Witt
Speakers. Very nice indeed.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
va boat or a
Falco!
======================================
Threshold? I never even heard of Threshold 20 years
ago. Of course, folks like McIntosh made absolute crap
20 years ago, correct?

Folks like McIntosh made what they have always made,
attractively packaged, great specs, relatively low build
cost, basically high feedback Class B PA-style amplifiers.

Glad to see that you posture from ludicrous positions as
well as ever, Bret.

"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.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:30:50 GMT, wrote:


"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.

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.

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!!

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


"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.

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!!!!

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


"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.

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.

At least according to your spirited
defense of DBT/ABX.

ABX is for subtle differences, there's nothing subtle about the awful
performance of the WAVAC. $350,000 for a monoblock amp with awful FR and
double digit distortion.

The only possible reason to want one, is to show you have more money than
sense.

"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
...
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.

"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?

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
m...
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.

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.

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.

At least according to your spirited
defense of DBT/ABX.

ABX is for subtle differences, there's nothing subtle about the awful
performance of the WAVAC.

Then you should ace any ABX test. But you haven't, have you?

For you to comment on the sound of a piece of gear without even
listening to it is folly.

$350,000 for a monoblock amp with awful FR and
double digit distortion.

Do you even KNOW what you're talking about?

Nope. You can't even get the price of the component correct. The fact
that you're only overquoting the price by 100% doesn't seem to deter
you.

The only possible reason to want one, is to show you have more money than
sense.

Or that you like the sound as well as the build quality and the look
of the thing.

Mike, you shouldn't envy things that you have no chance of ever
having. It's unhealthy.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:10:17 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

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?

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.

"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
om...
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.

"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.

At least according to your spirited
defense of DBT/ABX.

ABX is for subtle differences, there's nothing subtle about the awful
performance of the WAVAC.

Then you should ace any ABX test. But you haven't, have you?

For you to comment on the sound of a piece of gear without even
listening to it is folly.


Not if you understand what the meassurements are revealing.

$350,000 for a monoblock amp with awful FR and
double digit distortion.

Do you even KNOW what you're talking about?

Nope. You can't even get the price of the component correct.

$350,000 for the pair, such a better deal. You get a pair of anchors.


The fact
that you're only overquoting the price by 100% doesn't seem to deter
you.


It has nothing to do with the performance, which is the main point. At 50%
of the price I stated, they're still **** and still overpriced.

The only possible reason to want one, is to show you have more money than
sense.

Or that you like the sound as well as the build quality and the look
of the thing.

That someone would like the sound an anp with double digit distortion is
insane.

Mike, you shouldn't envy things that you have no chance of ever
having. It's unhealthy.

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

"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.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:10:17 GMT, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

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?

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..

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?

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.

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!

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" early and often
because he's envious of anybody who isn't trapped in a
dead-end job in a cheap bar that is so disreputable that he
is afraid to mention it on RAO.

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: 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. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"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.

Mike McKelvy has now endorsed WAVAC ampliers for those people who like
tube amplifiers and have the wherewithal to purchase them.

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.

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.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:50:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote in message
ink.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" early and often
because he's envious of anybody who isn't trapped in a
dead-end job in a cheap bar that is so disreputable that he
is afraid to mention it on RAO.

Said Arnold in his crumb-infested underwear while taking a break from
"work".

Besides, I don't know what this "envey card" is.

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

Because Weil tries to play the "envey card"

Said Arnold in his crumb-infested underwear while taking a break from "work".

Arnii isn't allowed to use the laundry equipment in his hovel because of the
incident in 1988 involving the toilets and the septic tank.

Besides, I don't know what this "envey card" is.

Arnii uses it as a fig leaf when he holds a "69 pitty party".


..
..

On 25 Nov 2005 05:24:34 -0800, "John Atkinson"
wrote:

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: 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. :-)

Idiot. An amplifier putting out a lot of distortion will obviously
sound different than one that is putting out orders of magnitude less
distortion. PLEASE quote a single "objectivst" disagreeing with this.
Sheesh!

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.

Way to go, sport!

Idiot.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 22:15:47 -0700, (Mark D) wrote:

I'll agree somewhat Bret, that yes, McIntosh perhaps is still in the
stone age, with their Class B Amps, their big ole potted, clunky, boxy
Transformers (Seems all have switched to Torroidal), VU Meters galore,
in which not too many amps I've ever seen other than them have them
anymore (Except maybe for the Audio Research Reference 600 if I can
recall)

I briefly owned a Mac preamp. I looked inside, and was disgusted by
the cheapness, at that price level. Cheap pots on all controls except
volume, cheap power supply, ancient op amps through-out. All show, no
go.

Many of them you needed a fork lift to move, but I can think of a few
other personal fav amps that are basically no different when it comes to
weight (Levinson #33, Krell FPB-600, and 650)

Well, the Mac has those output transformers, so for any given weight,
it's a worse amplifier.