Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:27:59 GMT, dizzy wrote:
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. I neglected to mention that it used 5% resistors throughout. I guess 1 cent 1% resistors are too spendy to use in a McIntosh preamp that retailed for $1,500. It might have added $1 to the bill of materials. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mike McKelvy endorses WAVAC amplifiers
"dave weil" wrote in message ... 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. Demonstrable for anyone who has seen the measurements. And glad to see that you've let the magazines off the hook when it comes to dbts, since they're mostly unnecessary. ONLY WHE THE DIFFERENCES AS MEASURABLE AS THOSE OF THE WAVAC. FOR SUBTLE DIFFERENCE A MORE SENSITIVE FORM OF COMPARISON IS NEEDED. |
#83
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... "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:51:47 GMT, wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message news:i4cco19cg2rtts7mh3133j2uile9rku98q@4ax. com... 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! Which CD players have you seen any measurements on that indicate gross differences? |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"dave weil" wrote in message ... 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. So you don't understand why the differnces of a WAVAC amp do not require a DBT to know that it is a crappy amp if you are looking for low distortion, I got it. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... 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. Specs are a starting point. If all one did was read teh specs of a WAVAC amp, they'd think it looks pretty good on paper. Bench tests and measurements tell a more revealing story. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... 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! Yes it is. 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. And I've always maintained that prefernce is entirely personal and you should buy what pleases you. It's when technical claims of superiority are made that comparisons come into the picture. If someone wants to claim that soa dn so tube amp is more accurate then that is a tecnical issue that can be addressed by bias controlled comparisons and measurements. I've said that I thnk there are 2 kinds of people who spend considerable sums on audio systems. One kind is devoted to what they think sounds good and the other kind is devoted to getting the most accurate playback of the master as possible. The first kind allows for distortion that the second kind considers sonic dirt. There's nothing wrong with the first kind of person, they just are not into HIGH FIDELITY. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"dave weil" wrote in message ... 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. For some people, for me I want amps that don't have any audible distortion or FR deviations. 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. More musical is a meaningless term for someone involved in Hi-fi. Either it's accurate or not. Sterile is the same kind of term. It probably applies more to recordings than to equipment. Good Hi-Fi gear is supposed to pass a signal without any audible effect other than making it louder. If that's not what you want then IMO you're not into Hi-Fi, you're into something different. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"dave weil" wrote in message ... 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". Since I never dismissed the need for DBT's it is a lie to say I have. DBT's are for subtle differences, not glaringly obvious ones such as the WAVAC has. If I was lying, then you must be advocating the use of dbts for the WAVAC. No subtle differences in the WAVAC when compared to any competently designed amp. Boy, are you addled. Maybe you need to check your patch and see if it's past its expiration date. Maybe you better seek help for your reading comprehension problem. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... 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? Conrad Johnson, AR, Dynaco, Hafler, VTL, Jadis, Cary, Jolida, and a few others. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
Mickey is apparently a polytheistic pagan. More musical is a meaningless term for someone involved in Hi-fi. The Greeks had a goddess of discord. Does the Archdemon of aBxism permit you to worship other deities, such as the Spirit of Sounds-Like-****? |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... You don't need to ABX when the differences are gross! Which CD players have you seen any measurements on that indicate gross differences? I 'listened' to them, they sounded quite different. I didn't 'hear' specs, I heard 'music'. by "the differences were gross', I was referring to the sound I heard. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
wrote in message nk.net... So you don't understand why the differnces of a QSC amp do not require a DBT to know that it is a crappy amp if you are looking for low distortion, I got it. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
wrote in message nk.net... And I've always maintained that prefernce is entirely personal and you should buy what pleases you. It's when technical claims of superiority are made that comparisons come into the picture. If someone wants to claim that soa dn so tube amp is more accurate then that is a tecnical issue that can be addressed by bias controlled comparisons and measurements. I just explained this to you a few days ago. We just think they sound better. Our 'better' is not your 'better'. I've said that I thnk there are 2 kinds of people who spend considerable sums on audio systems. One kind is devoted to what they think sounds good and the other kind is devoted to getting the most accurate playback of the master as possible. The first kind allows for distortion that the second kind considers sonic dirt. There's nothing wrong with the first kind of person, they just are not into HIGH FIDELITY. Our 'high fidelity' is not your'high fidelity' Your is fidelity to measurements. ours is fidelity to the perception of a live presentation |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"dizzy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:27:59 GMT, dizzy wrote: 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. I neglected to mention that it used 5% resistors throughout. I guess 1 cent 1% resistors are too spendy to use in a McIntosh preamp that retailed for $1,500. It might have added $1 to the bill of materials. What about the Gain Card amps? 9 parts, approx $50.00 cost for the DIYer, much less for someone buying in bulk, sold for $1500.00 or thereabouts from 47 Lab. |
#95
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... "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. Specs are a starting point. If all one did was read teh specs of a WAVAC amp, they'd think it looks pretty good on paper. Bench tests and measurements tell a more revealing story. I don;t care what it looks like. waht does it sound like? Listen to the goddamn thing. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
wrote in message nk.net... "dave weil" wrote in message ... 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. For some people, for me I want amps that don't have any audible distortion or FR deviations. 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. More musical is a meaningless term for someone involved in Hi-fi. Either it's accurate or not. Sterile is the same kind of term. It probably applies more to recordings than to equipment. Good Hi-Fi gear is supposed to pass a signal without any audible effect other than making it louder. If that's not what you want then IMO you're not into Hi-Fi, you're into something different. At least not your version of hi fi |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Mike McKelvy endorses WAVAC amplifiers
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:31:15 GMT, wrote:
And glad to see that you've let the magazines off the hook when it comes to dbts, since they're mostly unnecessary. ONLY WHE THE DIFFERENCES AS MEASURABLE AS THOSE OF THE WAVAC. FOR SUBTLE DIFFERENCE A MORE SENSITIVE FORM OF COMPARISON IS NEEDED. So, that means that Mr. Ludwig doesn't have to do DBTs. Cool. |
#98
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... 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? Conrad Johnson, AR, Dynaco, Hafler, VTL, Jadis, Cary, Jolida, and a few others. Of those, I haven't heard JAdis and AR (unless you mena ARC). The Dynaco enerally sounds worse than SS. The others are preferrable to the best SS I heard One ss exception was a Muse which sounded quite good. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
Clyde Slick said to duh-Mikey: HIGH FIDELITY. Our 'high fidelity' is not your'high fidelity' Your is fidelity to measurements. ours is fidelity to the perception of a live presentation I have to say that this comment of yours is quite unfair to Mikey. For him, as for the other 'borgs, recordings are sui generis and unrelated to other hypothetically attainable experiences. Mickey is arguing from a fantastical vision of nonexistent technology and roboticized human sensory apparatuses, not from such a mundane experience as going to a concert to hear musicians performing real music. Any 'borg will tell you that if you want to listen to live music, you don't need a stereo to do it. |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Mickey is apparently a polytheistic pagan. More musical is a meaningless term for someone involved in Hi-fi. That takes the cake!!!!! |
#101
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 ... 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@4 ax.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. It's not an assumption. You just said in another post that you heard gross differnces in CD players, something that AFAIK is not possible, at least in any CD player I've ever seen reviewed. IOW you heard differnces that did not exist. |
#102
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 ... You don't need to ABX when the differences are gross! Which CD players have you seen any measurements on that indicate gross differences? I 'listened' to them, they sounded quite different. I didn't 'hear' specs, I heard 'music'. by "the differences were gross', I was referring to the sound I heard. What brands and models? |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message nk.net... So you don't understand why the differnces of a QSC amp do not require a DBT to know that it is a crappy amp if you are looking for low distortion, I got it. Nice try. Go back to listening to mirages now. |
#104
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... "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. Specs are a starting point. If all one did was read teh specs of a WAVAC amp, they'd think it looks pretty good on paper. Bench tests and measurements tell a more revealing story. I don;t care what it looks like. waht does it sound like? Listen to the goddamn thing. You don't seem to get it, I'm not looking for an amp that is going to unquestionably alter the sound of whatever goes through it. I ONLY WANT IT TO AMPLIFY, NOT ALTER. If your not smart enough to know from the published measurements, that the WAVAC is going to garbage up the signal, then you need a new hobby. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
said:
It's not an assumption. You just said in another post that you heard gross differnces in CD players, something that AFAIK is not possible, at least in any CD player I've ever seen reviewed. IOW you heard differnces that did not exist. Some CD players are engineered to sound different, e.g. players with tube output stages. Compared with generic players, differences *can* be significant. Also, the various methods of decoding D to A may lead to at least measurable differences. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#106
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 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. And you DON'T have the right to assume whether I do or do not hear differences between various equipment. It's not an assumption. You just said in another post that you heard gross differnces in CD players, something that AFAIK is not possible, at least in any CD player I've ever seen reviewed. IOW you heard differnces that did not exist. It most certainly is an assumption. I heard differences you are neither able to hear nor to measure. Buy a hearing aid, or come up with some better ways to measure. |
#107
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... So you don't understand why the differnces of a QSC amp do not require a DBT to know that it is a crappy amp if you are looking for low distortion, I got it. Nice try. Go back to listening to mirages now. I didn't say that. Actually, it might have been you. |
#108
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 ... You don't need to ABX when the differences are gross! Which CD players have you seen any measurements on that indicate gross differences? I 'listened' to them, they sounded quite different. I didn't 'hear' specs, I heard 'music'. by "the differences were gross', I was referring to the sound I heard. What brands and models? answered, as far as my recollection of model numbers. |
#109
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... "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. Specs are a starting point. If all one did was read teh specs of a WAVAC amp, they'd think it looks pretty good on paper. Bench tests and measurements tell a more revealing story. I don;t care what it looks like. waht does it sound like? Listen to the goddamn thing. You don't seem to get it, I'm not looking for an amp that is going to unquestionably alter the sound of whatever goes through it. I ONLY WANT IT TO AMPLIFY, NOT ALTER. If your not smart enough to know from the published measurements, that the WAVAC is going to garbage up the signal, then you need a new hobby. I don't understand why you need to keep punishing your ears with accuracy. You don't give a **** waht it sounds like, or even if you enjoy it, as long as you have the 'security blanket' of knowing it has good specs for FR and distortion, now matter how unmusical the result might be. |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... said: It's not an assumption. You just said in another post that you heard gross differnces in CD players, something that AFAIK is not possible, at least in any CD player I've ever seen reviewed. IOW you heard differnces that did not exist. Some CD players are engineered to sound different, e.g. players with tube output stages. Compared with generic players, differences *can* be significant. As always tubes are not part of any discussion I have about audio equipment. A tubed CD player to me is like what a catholic must feel like seeing somebody **** on a picture of Jesus. Also, the various methods of decoding D to A may lead to at least measurable differences. I never would claim otherwise, but audible is another matter. |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.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 ... 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. And you DON'T have the right to assume whether I do or do not hear differences between various equipment. It's not an assumption. You just said in another post that you heard gross differnces in CD players, something that AFAIK is not possible, at least in any CD player I've ever seen reviewed. IOW you heard differnces that did not exist. It most certainly is an assumption. I heard differences you are neither able to hear nor to measure. Buy a hearing aid, or come up with some better ways to measure. If they can't be measured they can't be heard either. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message nk.net... So you don't understand why the differnces of a QSC amp do not require a DBT to know that it is a crappy amp if you are looking for low distortion, I got it. Nice try. Go back to listening to mirages now. I didn't say that. Actually, it might have been you. But it wasn't. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... 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... "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. Specs are a starting point. If all one did was read teh specs of a WAVAC amp, they'd think it looks pretty good on paper. Bench tests and measurements tell a more revealing story. I don;t care what it looks like. waht does it sound like? Listen to the goddamn thing. You don't seem to get it, I'm not looking for an amp that is going to unquestionably alter the sound of whatever goes through it. I ONLY WANT IT TO AMPLIFY, NOT ALTER. If your not smart enough to know from the published measurements, that the WAVAC is going to garbage up the signal, then you need a new hobby. I don't understand why you need to keep punishing your ears with accuracy. You don't give a **** waht it sounds like, or even if you enjoy it, as long as you have the 'security blanket' of knowing it has good specs for FR and distortion, now matter how unmusical the result might be. I'm not punishing my ears, I'm just not letting them hear something that isn't there. I do care what stuff sounds like, the electronics should have no sound at all, they're just supposed to pass the signal or amplifiy it. The part that makes real differnce is the speakers and that part I care most about. For the rest I want to hear the recording as it was done. That way I know if the recording is good or not, instead of having to guess at how the equipment might be altering it. If I want to alter it, I can always get an EQ, or some sort of DSP. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "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'. Deoends on how similar. |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
wrote in message ink.net... : : "Clyde Slick" wrote in message : ... : It most certainly is an assumption. : I heard differences you are neither able to hear nor to measure. : Buy a hearing aid, or come up with some better ways to measure. : : If they can't be measured they can't be heard either. : : Maybe so. However, the same problem that plagues abX is at hand he you can measure temperature, relative humidity, illumination level and what not, how are the results relevant to the question of difference ? Iow, to state that some measurements or metric are relevant do not make it so. Usually, not relevance, but convenience and available measurement equipment have set the standard and type of measurements :-) THD, for instance, is calculated with a summing of the squared levels of the various harmonic distortions - not at all a correct weighing of the actual perception of 'aggravation' by these distortion components - as is known for decades At a more fundamental level, the mental model of having some pristine signal and a separate 'distortion level treshold function' in the listener is just not the way perception works. So while at some instances, as little as 0.03 % distortion is clearly noticeable*, at other times, several percent will pass by unnoticed**. Under dynamic conditions, that is, with music, things like time domain and frequency domain masking take place. Many perception modifiers (i prefer that to the rather loaded-with-connotations-term bias) are at work, whether sighted, blinded, double or tripled, whatever ;-) listening is done, making it an individual experience that cannot readily be lumped together: that would make as much sense as saying that the average taste preference is "red herring with sour cream and strawberry ice on top". Of course, distortion is just one aspect, frequency range, frequency response, noise, output impedance, horizontal and vertical dispersion vs. frequency, sensitivity, pulse response, compression, jitter are some other metrics that are applicable with some of the components in the audio reproduction chain. Your claim to know "what one is able to hear" is highly suspect. It would also render a lot of testing and evaluation in the real world rather pointless, as it could then be established from a simple set of measurements, some metric, fed into some weighing matrix and..presto audible or non-audible comes out -- i think NOT. Rudy * in a 1000 Hz sine wave, in a carefully set up university experiment, by some of the participants..others had trouble with anything under 0.5 % :-) ** playing back music, containing 30 - 60 Hz components at reasonably loud levels, all speakers will give you such distortion levels (except some megasized woofers |
#116
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 ink.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 ... 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:9gj6o1hhd2kgrsi5ug08q9v4p2ujqvp0m ... 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. It's not an assumption. You just said in another post that you heard gross differnces in CD players, something that AFAIK is not possible, at least in any CD player I've ever seen reviewed. IOW you heard differnces that did not exist. It most certainly is an assumption. I heard differences you are neither able to hear nor to measure. Buy a hearing aid, or come up with some better ways to measure. If they can't be measured they can't be heard either. When you come up with a better measureing tool, Then you'll hear it!!!!! |
#117
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 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... "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. Specs are a starting point. If all one did was read teh specs of a WAVAC amp, they'd think it looks pretty good on paper. Bench tests and measurements tell a more revealing story. I don;t care what it looks like. waht does it sound like? Listen to the goddamn thing. You don't seem to get it, I'm not looking for an amp that is going to unquestionably alter the sound of whatever goes through it. I ONLY WANT IT TO AMPLIFY, NOT ALTER. If your not smart enough to know from the published measurements, that the WAVAC is going to garbage up the signal, then you need a new hobby. I don't understand why you need to keep punishing your ears with accuracy. You don't give a **** waht it sounds like, or even if you enjoy it, as long as you have the 'security blanket' of knowing it has good specs for FR and distortion, now matter how unmusical the result might be. I'm not punishing my ears, I'm just not letting them hear something that isn't there. I do care what stuff sounds like, the electronics should have no sound at all, they're just supposed to pass the signal or amplifiy it. The part that makes real differnce is the speakers and that part I care most about. For the rest I want to hear the recording as it was done. That way I know if the recording is good or not, instead of having to guess at how the equipment might be altering it. If I want to alter it, I can always get an EQ, or some sort of DSP. They don't alter it quite to my taste. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... : : "Clyde Slick" wrote in message : ... : It most certainly is an assumption. : I heard differences you are neither able to hear nor to measure. : Buy a hearing aid, or come up with some better ways to measure. : : If they can't be measured they can't be heard either. : : Maybe so. However, the same problem that plagues abX is at hand he you can measure temperature, relative humidity, illumination level and what not, how are the results relevant to the question of difference ? Iow, to state that some measurements or metric are relevant do not make it so. Usually, not relevance, but convenience and available measurement equipment have set the standard and type of measurements :-) THD, for instance, is calculated with a summing of the squared levels of the various harmonic distortions - not at all a correct weighing of the actual perception of 'aggravation' by these distortion components - as is known for decades At a more fundamental level, the mental model of having some pristine signal and a separate 'distortion level treshold function' in the listener is just not the way perception works. So while at some instances, as little as 0.03 % distortion is clearly noticeable*, at other times, several percent will pass by unnoticed**. Under dynamic conditions, that is, with music, things like time domain and frequency domain masking take place. Many perception modifiers (i prefer that to the rather loaded-with-connotations-term bias) are at work, whether sighted, blinded, double or tripled, whatever ;-) listening is done, making it an individual experience that cannot readily be lumped together: that would make as much sense as saying that the average taste preference is "red herring with sour cream and strawberry ice on top". Of course, distortion is just one aspect, frequency range, frequency response, noise, output impedance, horizontal and vertical dispersion vs. frequency, sensitivity, pulse response, compression, jitter are some other metrics that are applicable with some of the components in the audio reproduction chain. Your claim to know "what one is able to hear" is highly suspect. It would also render a lot of testing and evaluation in the real world rather pointless, as it could then be established from a simple set of measurements, some metric, fed into some weighing matrix and..presto audible or non-audible comes out -- i think NOT. Rudy From the other side, Thank You. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... : : "Clyde Slick" wrote in message : ... : It most certainly is an assumption. : I heard differences you are neither able to hear nor to measure. : Buy a hearing aid, or come up with some better ways to measure. : : If they can't be measured they can't be heard either. : : Maybe so. Until someone identifies some new thing there is nothing known that people can hear that can't be measured. Things that can't be heard but are present in an audio signal can also be measured. The measuring equipment is far more sensitive than the ear. However, the same problem that plagues abX is at hand he That people reject it out of hand? you can measure temperature, relative humidity, illumination level and what not, how are the results relevant to the question of difference ? They aren't. There's either an audible differnence or not. Iow, to state that some measurements or metric are relevant do not make it so. Usually, not relevance, but convenience and available measurement equipment have set the standard and type of measurements :-) THD, for instance, is calculated with a summing of the squared levels of the various harmonic distortions - not at all a correct weighing of the actual perception of 'aggravation' by these distortion components - as is known for decades At a more fundamental level, the mental model of having some pristine signal and a separate 'distortion level treshold function' in the listener is just not the way perception works. So while at some instances, as little as 0.03 % distortion is clearly noticeable*, at other times, several percent will pass by unnoticed**. AFAIK 1% is where it becomes noticable for humans. Under dynamic conditions, that is, with music, things like time domain and frequency domain masking take place. Many perception modifiers (i prefer that to the rather loaded-with-connotations-term bias) are at work, whether sighted, blinded, double or tripled, whatever ;-) listening is done, making it an individual experience that cannot readily be lumped together: that would make as much sense as saying that the average taste preference is "red herring with sour cream and strawberry ice on top". It is still known that a DBT IS vastly more reliable for evaluating differences than any form of sighted listening. There is ample data on this and I've posted plenty of the titles and authors who have done the research. As I said to Ludovic, a simple e-mail to Sean Olive will get you more information than you need on the subject of blind evaluations vs. sighted ones. Of course, distortion is just one aspect, frequency range, frequency response, noise, output impedance, horizontal and vertical dispersion vs. frequency, sensitivity, pulse response, compression, jitter are some other metrics that are applicable with some of the components in the audio reproduction chain. No properly functioning CD player has audible jitter. Dispersion is the province of loudspeakers as is pulse response. SS amps present a much more speaker friendly impedance than do tubed amps. There are some people that say there is no vertical dispersion, I'm not so sure. Certainly loudspeakers play the single most important role in what we hear. There's not much we can do about the recordings and how much or how little compression is used. There is no audio gear tha I know of or at leasthat I would be interested in that can't produce the entire audible frequency range. Your claim to know "what one is able to hear" is highly suspect. It's not just me saying it. There is plenty of research that demonstrates what is audible and what is not. No small amount of it comeing from research into hearing aids. It would also render a lot of testing and evaluation in the real world rather pointless, as it could then be established from a simple set of measurements, some metric, fed into some weighing matrix and..presto audible or non-audible comes out -- i think NOT. I suggest you read some of the research and then see what you think. In any case the world of subjectivist audio is a far cry from the real world and what audio components are actually capable of. Rudy * in a 1000 Hz sine wave, in a carefully set up university experiment, by some of the participants..others had trouble with anything under 0.5 % :-) ** playing back music, containing 30 - 60 Hz components at reasonably loud levels, all speakers will give you such distortion levels (except some megasized woofers With loudspeakers the only way you can reduce distortion is with more drivers covering the same frequency range, or new, better materials. 5% THD is very typical, especially for woofers. We've grown used to that level of distortion and there's not mich that we can use to compare that doesn't have the same amount, but adding in 10% more from anything like the WAVAC woujld certainly show up as audible The standard for THD has been anything over 1% is audible. 10% as is the case for the WAVAC is simply crap. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
the are only two kinds of amplifiers
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
THD, for instance, is calculated with a summing of the squared levels of the various harmonic distortions - not at all a correct weighing of the actual perception of 'aggravation' by these distortion components - as is known for decades Straw man argument. THD is not the only possible or even commonly used means for measure or charaterize nonlinear distortion. |
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 |