"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


There is also a subjective observation I can offer: A
QSC amplifier sounds a
lot like a Sunfire, or an (old) Bryston. There may be
some who like that sound. I do not. To me, these
particular amplifiers are abhorent.

How many QSC amps have you listened to?

Ironic that Bob tacitly admits that he never has listened to
any.

Brilliant!

Not all are the same.

What? Mikey, please clarify. I thought you believe that
all properly operating amplifiers sound the same.

A very transparent red herring argument.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:9sC6f.3561$Ix3.3283@dukeread05
"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:34:53 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message
...

Here's an example:

http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/266/

Krells specs:

"Output power: 350W into 8 ohms (25.4dBW), 700W into 4
ohms (25.4dBW), 1400W into 2 ohms (25.4dBW)."

Actual measured:

"475W into 8 ohms (26.8dBW), way above the specified
power. 850W was available into 4 ohms (26.3dBW) and
while I measured 1060W into 2 ohms (24.2 dBW) rather
than the specified 1400W, the AC line in our Santa Fe
office was sagging significantly for this
measurement."

The above 2-ohm measurement we can discount, but note
the 8 and 4-ohm measurements. They do not double. The
output voltage dropped.

Dropped from a starting point way above rated
performance.

So what?

Idiot. You are falling back on "ratings" now, which
means that you are agreeing with what Arny and I are
saying - Krell fudges their ratings to make it LOOK like
the power doubles with each halving of load impedance
down to 2-ohms, which it DOES NOT.

Agreed.

What kind of dimwitted asshole complains that an amp
won't exceed all specs because it exceeds one?

I don't know, because that wasn't my point at all, which
you would know, if you could read.

Now, what kind of a retarded dumbass can't see that I'm
talking about the fact that essentially no amplifiers
can truly double their power when the load impedance
drops in half, despite what their specs say?

You're describing Scotty!

Thats exactly what the spec says and test data supports
it, how it is accomplished is a tad irrelevant.
Underrating
max 8 ohm power output isn't a sin except to you anal
morons.

Straw man debating trade argument.

Driving the voltage output beyond
rated limit (required to get more than rated power into 8
ohms) and expecting it to be held under greater loads
is just assinine.

No, its legitimate bench testing.

I see you couldn't provide anything more than childish
banter so snip.

Scotty can't admit that he was wrong, when faced with
reliable facts from an independent, authoritative source
(IOW, Stereophile's technical tests are pretty good as far
as they go).

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

Let's put it this way - Sander is a vacuum tube uber
alles proponent and a friend of Ge0rge Middius.


And tube amps do have the constant voltage source
characteristics I described in my earlier posts, right?

Nope - like all amps they act like neither pure current nor
voltage sources. They are someplace in-between.


That's why my latest 3 amps have MOSFET output stages,
right?

...and tubed drivers?

siiiiccckkk! :-(

Well, its one way to beat the availability problems related
to tube output devices.

No amp can do that, unless the high-voltage rails to the
output stage are regulated.

Even that extreme design feature would not ensure that
the amp was a constant voltage source on the bench,
because as the output current goes up, the voltage drop
across various components in series with the load go up.


Thanks for admitting Arny you are not aware of a certain
design trick called "negative loop feedback", which is
only known since Harold Black invented it in 1928 or so.

Actuall, the above wording was contrived while thinking
exactly about inverse feedback loops.

The regulator would cause some loss of power all by
itself.

Thanks for admitting Arny that the actual unstabilized
supply voltage has nothing to do with the actual output
voltage capacity of an amplifier with stabilized supply
rails.

???????????///

This is just like saying that the jet turbine in a car is
responsible for extraordinary gas consumption.


ROTFLMAO!!!

Keep 'em coming guys!

Sander's back on the stuff, it seems.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:54:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Scott. At least two of us have been trying to
explain it to you ,but apparently you just don't get it.

Say, this has a familiar ring from Arnie.

Actually, anybody with at least two synapses that they could
use to make a thought, might post this.

"ScottW" said:

The component cost is about ?800,

How much is that in $$ ?


That would be close to $1000, but I calculated again and the actual
figure is more like ‚¬600 (give or take $750).


when everything is bought new -
(assuming one *can* buy the 2SK135/2SJ50 anywhere today. I have a
stash of them reserved for future projects, hah!).


Bring 'em all over to my house and we'll put 'em against my KSA-150 and for
grins throw my Yamaha M-50 (which didn't sound any different to me).


It sounds like an interesting test to me.
Let me know if and when you're planning to do such a test.

Your place is close to Mike McKelvy's, isn't it?
It would be interesting to compare my amp to his Acoustat.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Robert Morein" said:

It would probably be a nice idea to compare it to your Acoustat, since
that amp most likely uses the same output devices, but in a different
configuration.

I have done that, more or less. I have a bunch of Hafler XL amps, which, may
I assume? are similar to yours in general topology, and I have Acoustats.
The amplifiers sound markedly different.


Not very similar, I'm afraid.
I'm using a E288CC double triode in SRPP to drive 2 pairs of
complementary MOSFETs in common source in the "integrated" version.
The power supply uses a 800 VA toroid for both channels.

The monoblocks use 2 x E288CC for 4 pairs of MOSFETs, with an 800 VA
power supply per channel.

Both power stages are biased high near class A (700 mA per MOSFET).

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Arny Krueger" said:

Use of bogus excluded middle debating trade argument, noted.


Thanks Arny for admitting you don't know an ohm from a volt.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Arny Krueger" said:

Let's put it this way - Sander is a vacuum tube uber
alles proponent and a friend of Ge0rge Middius.


And tube amps do have the constant voltage source
characteristics I described in my earlier posts, right?

Nope - like all amps they act like neither pure current nor
voltage sources. They are someplace in-between.



Thank you Arny for admitting that I'm not a vacuum-tube-uber-alles
proponent.
The being friend with Middius part we'll skip for this moment.


That's why my latest 3 amps have MOSFET output stages,
right?

..and tubed drivers?


Yup.


siiiiccckkk! :-(


thanks Arny for admitting you don't have a clue about things like
linearity, dynamic headroom and output swing capability.


Well, its one way to beat the availability problems related
to tube output devices.


Thank you Arny for admitting you don't have a clue about the
availability of solid state devices that were popular as far back as
only 10 years ago.
Oh, and work on that grammar, please!
A spell-checker doesn't catch misuse of "its" and "it's".

No amp can do that, unless the high-voltage rails to the
output stage are regulated.

Even that extreme design feature would not ensure that
the amp was a constant voltage source on the bench,
because as the output current goes up, the voltage drop
across various components in series with the load go up.


Thanks for admitting Arny you are not aware of a certain
design trick called "negative loop feedback", which is
only known since Harold Black invented it in 1928 or so.

Actuall, the above wording was contrived while thinking
exactly about inverse feedback loops.


Thank you Arny for admitting you don't have a clue as to how to apply
theoretical knowledge (no wait, make that "knowlege") to practical
circuits.


The regulator would cause some loss of power all by
itself.

Thanks for admitting Arny that the actual unstabilized
supply voltage has nothing to do with the actual output
voltage capacity of an amplifier with stabilized supply
rails.

???????????///


A little reading challenged, aren't we?


This is just like saying that the jet turbine in a car is
responsible for extraordinary gas consumption.


ROTFLMAO!!!

Keep 'em coming guys!

Sander's back on the stuff, it seems.


Thanks you Arny for admitting you're actually an armchair engineer.

You should try Maroc one time, it will open your mind :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:05:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Better we should ask, Why does QSC not simply make a
variant of their existing amp in a more cosmetically
attractive case with bigger, much bigger, heatsink, and
sell it under a badge engineered name to the high end
market?

Good question. BTW their competitor Behringer already does:

http://www.behringer.com/A500/index.cfm?lang=ENG

Probably they thought about it and realized no one will
buy it.

I get this feeling that Behringer's product will sell
briskly.

Well, at $229 ex shipping and customs, it probably should.

Odd that you think it's being marketed to the high end market.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:00:40 GMT, "
wrote:

I don't think you honestly do that for any amp, yet people do it here all
the time.

So, as my mom would have said, "If your friend jumps off the top of a
building, you're going to do the same"?


I think sometimes it good to illustrate absurdity by being a bit absurd.

So, we shouldn't take your comments that started this whole thread
seriously at all then. You were just wasting everyone's time...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
What it DOES mean, on the other hand, is that the Krell is a 1400W
amplifier designed for optimum performance into a load of 2 ohms or
less. Since the output is voltage limited, it's an inefficient
amplifier choice for an 8 ohm speaker.

**All well and good Norm, but when was the last time you measured a
perfectly resistive loudspeaker load?

Quite true. An 8 ohm speaker spends lots of time in a region of lower
impedance. But it's a matter of degree. Surely you wouldn't design an
amplifier to supply 1400W into a 2 ohm speaker 24 hours a day, day in and
day out, if it was actually going to drive a speaker whose impedance
never drops below 4 ohms.

**I would not design such an amp, and Krell does not either. However, it
makes sense to design an amp which can drive such loads for musically
relevant periods of time.

As I understand it, Krell's 2 ohm spec is just as solid as the 4 and 8 ohm
specs, good for 24/7 operation in the same environment as the 2 lower power
specs. IOW, the Krell is a 1400W amplifier in every sense: 1400 watt
power supply, 1400W output circuit, 1400W heatsinking, etc. If you had a 2
ohm load, and you wanted a 1400W amplifier, the Krell would fill the bill
exactly. No derating necessary.

Of course I'm relying on the info in the original post. I haven't read the
actual Krell published spec, which conceivably might have other things to
say about 2 ohm operation.

Norm

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
snip
(spray monitor with FDS before continuing)

Ever heard of opportunity cost? It is obvious that you
have none but there are folks who will make more than
$15K in the time it takes to fiddle with their amp.

Good thing that there's no need to fiddle with QSC amps.

Better we should ask, Why does QSC not simply make a
variant of their existing amp in a more cosmetically
attractive case with bigger, much bigger, heatsink, and
sell it under a badge engineered name to the high end
market?

Good question. BTW their competitor Behringer already does:

http://www.behringer.com/A500/index.cfm?lang=ENG

Probably they thought about it and realized no one will
buy it.

I get this feeling that Behringer's product will sell briskly.

I'm tremendously impressed. Behringer has made an excellent amplifier at an
extremely low price. 50 cents/watt for a fully packaged design is dirt
cheap.

I'm ready to buy!

Norm Strong

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:tcC6f.3558$Ix3.445@dukeread05...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
" said:


As I said, it would be very interesting to do a blind comparison of the
QSC
amp against a Krell or any other amp approved for home listening. I
doubt
that there will be any way someone will be offering up a Krell or
something
in that price range for comparison, but there are other amps that are
reputed to sound great which don't cost Krell kind of money that might
be
used for such a comparison.

I just like the idea of being able to get the most bang for one's buck,
and
using a pro amp that has a very low price and very high power compared
to
any similar powered audiophile amp would be one way to enlighten
consumers
as to how they can do that.


If you can agree to split the shipping costs, I can send you one of
mine to try.
The component cost is about ?800,

How much is that in $$ ?

when everything is bought new -
(assuming one *can* buy the 2SK135/2SJ50 anywhere today. I have a
stash of them reserved for future projects, hah!).

Bring 'em all over to my house and we'll put 'em against my KSA-150 and
for
grins throw my Yamaha M-50 (which didn't sound any different to me).

ScottW

I had an M-50. Marvelous sounding amp with lousy spring connectors! I'm
not
surprised it sounds like your KSA.

Yeah those speaker terminals definitely suck. I kind of drilled out the
plastic housing.. it was too small to allow a dencent sized pin. I've been
tempted to change 'em out but never quite get around to it.

ScottW

wrote:
snip

I'm tremendously impressed. Behringer has made an excellent amplifier at an
extremely low price. 50 cents/watt for a fully packaged design is dirt
cheap.

I'm ready to buy!

The Behringer will drive a pair of stage monitors, loud, about as good
as a Krell. Of course you won't be able to fix it if it breaks, but
admittedly you can buy a lot of Behringers for the price of a Krell.
The Krell will drive really efficient speakers in a living room at a
20-second averaged output level of 20 mW with superb sonics. The
Behringer will annoy you no end if you have any sort of ears.

I'm no fan of Krell for several reasons, but, their stuff sounds
better than okay. In fact it sounds about as good as solid state power
amplifiers can (which is better than pretty good, and in certain ways
better than tubes can.)
Behringer is musosumo ****.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Driving the voltage output beyond
rated limit (required to get more than rated power into 8
ohms) and expecting it to be held under greater loads
is just assinine.

No, its legitimate bench testing.

What legit about it? There's no claim the Krell will hold that voltage
into any load. It will hold its rated voltage into increased loads and that
is the point.

The rest of your case is just BS. Personally... I don't really care if
QSC has to derate power output into increased load. I don't even much care
it impacts socalled input sensitivity (a misnomer IMO), but I do care that
THD increases an order of magnitude. Very suspect.

ScottW

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" said:

The component cost is about ?800,

How much is that in $$ ?


That would be close to $1000, but I calculated again and the actual
figure is more like ?600 (give or take $750).


when everything is bought new -
(assuming one *can* buy the 2SK135/2SJ50 anywhere today. I have a
stash of them reserved for future projects, hah!).


Bring 'em all over to my house and we'll put 'em against my KSA-150 and
for
grins throw my Yamaha M-50 (which didn't sound any different to me).


It sounds like an interesting test to me.
Let me know if and when you're planning to do such a test.

Your place is close to Mike McKelvy's, isn't it?

Is he in So Cal?

It would be interesting to compare my amp to his Acoustat.

How much do you think shipping would be?

ScottW

"ScottW" said:

The rest of your case is just BS. Personally... I don't really care if
QSC has to derate power output into increased load. I don't even much care
it impacts socalled input sensitivity (a misnomer IMO), but I do care that
THD increases an order of magnitude. Very suspect.


That one is easy.

The amp reaches its internal current or voltage limits, the loop
feedback tries to correct for that, until correction is no longer
possible and THD (and IMD) goes through the roof.


But don't accept that from me, I'm just another audiophool idiot with
"golden ears" who doesn't know an ohm from a volt ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"ScottW" said:

Your place is close to Mike McKelvy's, isn't it?

Is he in So Cal?


I believe so, I thought you guys (the other Scott, Art and Mike) came
together every now and then?


How much do you think shipping would be?


According to several quotes I called for, shipping a +20 kg item to
the States from Holland would be hovering from 150...200 euros,
depending on the service.
That's with UPS or FedEx.

PS: expect a *huge* box, as I always use double boxes with foam
inbetween.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:00:40 GMT, "
wrote:

I don't think you honestly do that for any amp, yet people do it here
all
the time.

So, as my mom would have said, "If your friend jumps off the top of a
building, you're going to do the same"?


I think sometimes it good to illustrate absurdity by being a bit absurd.

So, we shouldn't take your comments that started this whole thread
seriously at all then. You were just wasting everyone's time...

You should take them any way you want.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:9sC6f.3561$Ix3.3283@dukeread05
"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:34:53 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message
...

Here's an example:

http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/266/

Krells specs:

"Output power: 350W into 8 ohms (25.4dBW), 700W into 4
ohms (25.4dBW), 1400W into 2 ohms (25.4dBW)."

Actual measured:

"475W into 8 ohms (26.8dBW), way above the specified
power. 850W was available into 4 ohms (26.3dBW) and
while I measured 1060W into 2 ohms (24.2 dBW) rather
than the specified 1400W, the AC line in our Santa Fe
office was sagging significantly for this
measurement."

The above 2-ohm measurement we can discount, but note
the 8 and 4-ohm measurements. They do not double. The output voltage
dropped.

Dropped from a starting point way above rated
performance.

So what?

Idiot. You are falling back on "ratings" now, which
means that you are agreeing with what Arny and I are
saying - Krell fudges their ratings to make it LOOK like
the power doubles with each halving of load impedance
down to 2-ohms, which it DOES NOT.

Agreed.

What kind of dimwitted asshole complains that an amp
won't exceed all specs because it exceeds one?

I don't know, because that wasn't my point at all, which
you would know, if you could read.

Now, what kind of a retarded dumbass can't see that I'm
talking about the fact that essentially no amplifiers
can truly double their power when the load impedance
drops in half, despite what their specs say?

You're describing Scotty!

Thats exactly what the spec says and test data supports it, how it is
accomplished is a tad irrelevant. Underrating
max 8 ohm power output isn't a sin except to you anal
morons.

Straw man debating trade argument.

Driving the voltage output beyond
rated limit (required to get more than rated power into 8
ohms) and expecting it to be held under greater loads
is just assinine.

No, its legitimate bench testing.

I see you couldn't provide anything more than childish
banter so snip.

Scotty can't admit that he was wrong, when faced with reliable facts from
an independent, authoritative source (IOW, Stereophile's technical tests
are pretty good as far as they go).

That's exactly the sentiment that Sean Olive expressed to me. The specs
that are usually listed and tested do very little to tell anybody what the
component quality is.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" said:

Your place is close to Mike McKelvy's, isn't it?

Is he in So Cal?


I believe so, I thought you guys (the other Scott, Art and Mike) came
together every now and then?

No..that was Marc but haven't heard from him in awhile.


How much do you think shipping would be?


According to several quotes I called for, shipping a +20 kg item to
the States from Holland would be hovering from 150...200 euros,
depending on the service.
That's with UPS or FedEx.

PS: expect a *huge* box, as I always use double boxes with foam
inbetween.

I used Shannon Express... a freight broker... once for the Legacy's as UPS
wouldn't handle it and UPS ( or Fed Ex) big package service was very
expensive. One of those 2 (cant remember which) wouldn't touch it due to
the weight. Anyway, the Freight broker was much cheaper and they had it in
my driveway with 15 minutes of scheduled delivery time.

So Mike, wanna make a trip to San Diego with your ABX box?

ScottW

" wrote in message
k.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:00:40 GMT, "
wrote:

I don't think you honestly do that for any amp, yet people do it here
all
the time.

So, as my mom would have said, "If your friend jumps off the top of a
building, you're going to do the same"?


I think sometimes it good to illustrate absurdity by being a bit absurd.

So, we shouldn't take your comments that started this whole thread
seriously at all then. You were just wasting everyone's time...

You should take them any way you want.

A waste of time.

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:9sC6f.3561$Ix3.3283@dukeread05
"dizzy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:34:53 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message
...

Here's an example:

http://stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/266/

Krells specs:

"Output power: 350W into 8 ohms (25.4dBW), 700W into 4
ohms (25.4dBW), 1400W into 2 ohms (25.4dBW)."

Actual measured:

"475W into 8 ohms (26.8dBW), way above the specified
power. 850W was available into 4 ohms (26.3dBW) and
while I measured 1060W into 2 ohms (24.2 dBW) rather
than the specified 1400W, the AC line in our Santa Fe
office was sagging significantly for this
measurement."

The above 2-ohm measurement we can discount, but note
the 8 and 4-ohm measurements. They do not double. The output voltage
dropped.

Dropped from a starting point way above rated
performance.

So what?

Idiot. You are falling back on "ratings" now, which
means that you are agreeing with what Arny and I are
saying - Krell fudges their ratings to make it LOOK like
the power doubles with each halving of load impedance
down to 2-ohms, which it DOES NOT.

Agreed.

What kind of dimwitted asshole complains that an amp
won't exceed all specs because it exceeds one?

I don't know, because that wasn't my point at all, which
you would know, if you could read.

Now, what kind of a retarded dumbass can't see that I'm
talking about the fact that essentially no amplifiers
can truly double their power when the load impedance
drops in half, despite what their specs say?

You're describing Scotty!

Thats exactly what the spec says and test data supports it, how it is
accomplished is a tad irrelevant. Underrating
max 8 ohm power output isn't a sin except to you anal
morons.

Straw man debating trade argument.

Driving the voltage output beyond
rated limit (required to get more than rated power into 8
ohms) and expecting it to be held under greater loads
is just assinine.

No, its legitimate bench testing.

I see you couldn't provide anything more than childish
banter so snip.

Scotty can't admit that he was wrong, when faced with reliable facts from
an independent, authoritative source (IOW, Stereophile's technical tests
are pretty good as far as they go).

That's exactly the sentiment that Sean Olive expressed to me. The specs
that are usually listed and tested do very little to tell anybody what the
component quality is.

This statement kind of makes the OP look pretty silly... don't you think?

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


There is also a subjective observation I can offer: A
QSC amplifier sounds a
lot like a Sunfire, or an (old) Bryston. There may be
some who like that sound. I do not. To me, these
particular amplifiers are abhorent.

How many QSC amps have you listened to?

Ironic that Bob tacitly admits that he never has listened to
any.

Brilliant!

Not all are the same.

What? Mikey, please clarify. I thought you believe that
all properly operating amplifiers sound the same.

A very transparent red herring argument.

Please explain.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:54:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Scott. At least two of us have been trying to
explain it to you ,but apparently you just don't get it.

Say, this has a familiar ring from Arnie.

Actually, anybody with at least two synapses that they could
use to make a thought, might post this.

A typical reflex response from Arny. No icerebral nvolvement.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:ihC6f.3559$Ix3.2436@dukeread05...

" wrote in message
news

"ScottW" wrote in message

We're not disagreeing here Scott. I've simply chosen to emphasize the
inefficiency of the Krell when driving an 8 ohm load; you're pointing
up the versatility of the Krell into a variety of loads. If this
versatility came for free, I'd be all for it. As it is, the result is
a $17,000 amplifier, which to my way of thinking is more or less
absurd.

We're still not disagreeing. But value wasn't part of the original
question.

ScottW

Actually that was pretty much the whole point.

Why spend 17K for what you could get for a lot less, at least for normal
listening with normal speaker loads.

I thought you started with ... "and not be able to hear any difference".

Very likely given the power output of each of the amps. Normal speakers
withnormal loads, played at normal listening levels should not show any sign
of distortion or noise to interfere with the enjoyment of music. The QSC
has the big advantage in price which makes it more advantageous IMO.

There seems to be plenty enough spec discrepancy to believe that may
be possible.

You've checked the complete list at QSC's website?

I ignored the 17K comment as I have no need for such power
(150W is more than adequate for me) and my KSA-150 can drive any load
and didn't cost a lot.


I would hope nobody ever NEEDS the power available from the 2 amps I
mentioned, but I always feel it's better to have more than you need just
like using higer voltage ratings for components to insure they aren't
stressed. If I could get a reliable amp for a low price with 3 times the
power I ever expect to need, I see it at advantageous to do so.

I'm sure that's part of the philosophy behind Krell designs, over build for
durability, the extra heavy case is kinda pointless.

What specs do beleive are sufficintly different to create possible audible
differences and at what sort of levels do you think they would come into
play?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:54:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Scott. At least two of us have been trying to
explain it to you ,but apparently you just don't get it.

Say, this has a familiar ring from Arnie.

Actually, anybody with at least two synapses that they could
use to make a thought, might post this.

A typical reflex response from Arny. No icerebral nvolvement.

Spoken like a guy with only one synapse.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:00:02 GMT, "
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:00:40 GMT, "
wrote:

I don't think you honestly do that for any amp, yet people do it here
all
the time.

So, as my mom would have said, "If your friend jumps off the top of a
building, you're going to do the same"?


I think sometimes it good to illustrate absurdity by being a bit absurd.

So, we shouldn't take your comments that started this whole thread
seriously at all then. You were just wasting everyone's time...

You should take them any way you want.

I did.

And thanks for admitting to your absurdity.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:03:13 GMT, "
wrote:

Scotty can't admit that he was wrong, when faced with reliable facts from
an independent, authoritative source (IOW, Stereophile's technical tests
are pretty good as far as they go).

That's exactly the sentiment that Sean Olive expressed to me. The specs
that are usually listed and tested do very little to tell anybody what the
component quality is.

Unless of couse you're talking about two amps, one of which you think
is an outstanding bargain.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:53:36 GMT, "
wrote:


Actually, anybody with at least two synapses that they could
use to make a thought, might post this.

A typical reflex response from Arny. No icerebral nvolvement.

Spoken like a guy with only one synapse.

Better get that "i" under control, Robert. It's undermining your
credibility. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:53:36 GMT, "
wrote:


Actually, anybody with at least two synapses that they could
use to make a thought, might post this.

A typical reflex response from Arny. No icerebral nvolvement.

Spoken like a guy with only one synapse.

Better get that "i" under control, Robert. It's undermining your
credibility. :-)

Javol. I will correct the synapse immediately.

" wrote in message
k.net...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:ihC6f.3559$Ix3.2436@dukeread05...

" wrote in message
news

"ScottW" wrote in message

We're not disagreeing here Scott. I've simply chosen to emphasize
the
inefficiency of the Krell when driving an 8 ohm load; you're pointing
up the versatility of the Krell into a variety of loads. If this
versatility came for free, I'd be all for it. As it is, the result
is
a $17,000 amplifier, which to my way of thinking is more or less
absurd.

We're still not disagreeing. But value wasn't part of the original
question.

ScottW

Actually that was pretty much the whole point.

Why spend 17K for what you could get for a lot less, at least for
normal
listening with normal speaker loads.

I thought you started with ... "and not be able to hear any difference".

Very likely given the power output of each of the amps. Normal speakers
withnormal loads, played at normal listening levels should not show any
sign
of distortion or noise to interfere with the enjoyment of music. The QSC
has the big advantage in price which makes it more advantageous IMO.

There seems to be plenty enough spec discrepancy to believe that may
be possible.

You've checked the complete list at QSC's website?

I ignored the 17K comment as I have no need for such power
(150W is more than adequate for me) and my KSA-150 can drive any load
and didn't cost a lot.


I would hope nobody ever NEEDS the power available from the 2 amps I
mentioned, but I always feel it's better to have more than you need just
like using higer voltage ratings for components to insure they aren't
stressed. If I could get a reliable amp for a low price with 3 times the
power I ever expect to need, I see it at advantageous to do so.

I'm sure that's part of the philosophy behind Krell designs, over build
for
durability, the extra heavy case is kinda pointless.

What specs do beleive are sufficintly different to create possible audible
differences and at what sort of levels do you think they would come into
play?

That is actually a very good question, one which has not been effectively
investigated.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:edR6f.4314$Ix3.3294@dukeread05
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

Driving the voltage output beyond
rated limit (required to get more than rated power into
8 ohms) and expecting it to be held under greater loads
is just assinine.

No, its legitimate bench testing.

What legit about it?

It's how you find an amps actual physical limits.

There's no claim the Krell will
hold that voltage into any load. It will hold its rated
voltage into increased loads and that is the point.

You've missed the point.

The rest of your case is just BS. Personally... I
don't really care if QSC has to derate power output into
increased load.

In the end its all about clean power per buck.

I don't even much care it impacts
socalled input sensitivity (a misnomer IMO), but I do
care that THD increases an order of magnitude. Very
suspect.

Again Scotty, you're way to impressed with specifications.
What really matters is actual performance.

If you want to drive 2 ohm loads, or 4 ohm loads, then what
matters is actual clean performance into those loads, the
not the ratio of performance at the load you want to use,
and some other load you're not going to use.

The 1% THD numbers that QSC publishes are just
specifications. I really don't know why they bother with
them because they are obtained with the amp's clipping
indicators glowing brightly. If the amps aren't clipping
their THD is very respectible - on the order of 0.02%.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:
snip

I'm tremendously impressed. Behringer has made an
excellent amplifier at an extremely low price. 50
cents/watt for a fully packaged design is dirt cheap.

I'm ready to buy!

The Behringer will drive a pair of stage monitors, loud,
about as good as a Krell.

The Berhinger will drive any speaker about as well as a
Krell, within the respective amp's performance limits in
terms of power and impedance, of course.

Or perhaps Bret wants us to believe that all Krell amps are
the same?

Of course you won't be able to fix it if it breaks,

Why not?

but admittedly you can buy a lot of
Behringers for the price of a Krell. The Krell will drive
really efficient speakers in a living room at a 20-second
averaged output level of 20 mW with superb sonics. The
Behringer will annoy you no end if you have any sort of
ears.

Based on what level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled
listening tests?

I'm betting that in fact Bret has never seen the Behringer
A500 in the flesh, let alone listened to it.

I'm no fan of Krell for several reasons, but, their stuff
sounds better than okay. In fact it sounds about as good
as solid state power amplifiers can (which is better than
pretty good, and in certain ways better than tubes can.)

Behringer is musosumo ****.

Bret is obviously a troll.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:00:02 GMT, "
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:00:40 GMT, "
wrote:

I don't think you honestly do that for any amp, yet people do it here
all
the time.

So, as my mom would have said, "If your friend jumps off the top of a
building, you're going to do the same"?


I think sometimes it good to illustrate absurdity by being a bit absurd.

So, we shouldn't take your comments that started this whole thread
seriously at all then. You were just wasting everyone's time...

You should take them any way you want.

I did.

And thanks for admitting to your absurdity.

Now it's your turn.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


There is also a subjective observation I can offer: A
QSC amplifier sounds a
lot like a Sunfire, or an (old) Bryston. There may be
some who like that sound. I do not. To me, these
particular amplifiers are abhorent.

How many QSC amps have you listened to?

Ironic that Bob tacitly admits that he never has listened to
any.

Brilliant!

Not all are the same.

What? Mikey, please clarify. I thought you believe that
all properly operating amplifiers sound the same.

A very transparent red herring argument.

Please explain.

You complained that the one amp from QSC you listened to sounded bad, but
you made no attempt to do any sort of bias controlled comparison of it to
anything else. You also seem to believe that there are different amplifiers
sounds based on the type of amplifier, Class H for example. QSC make many
different amps most of which are not class H, which I have never heard bad
mouthed by anyone. The old Soundcraftsmen Class H amps were always well
reviewed AFAIK.

Given all the different amps QSC makes and that they also seem to be
universally well reviewed and respected, it would seem only fair to see if
you have heard any other of their amps.

I picked the PLX series simply because they are touted as for anybody
needing a high quality, high power amp.

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


There is also a subjective observation I can offer: A
QSC amplifier sounds a
lot like a Sunfire, or an (old) Bryston. There may be
some who like that sound. I do not. To me, these
particular amplifiers are abhorent.

How many QSC amps have you listened to?

Ironic that Bob tacitly admits that he never has listened to
any.

Brilliant!

Not all are the same.

What? Mikey, please clarify. I thought you believe that
all properly operating amplifiers sound the same.

A very transparent red herring argument.

Please explain.

You complained that the one amp from QSC you listened to sounded bad, but
you made no attempt to do any sort of bias controlled comparison of it to
anything else.
It was ****ing on my back. I assume you can't tell when a light is on in the
room, or when the wind is blowing, or whether you are stinking up the joint.
Let me enlighten you: all three things are happening.

You also seem to believe that there are different amplifiers
sounds based on the type of amplifier, Class H for example. QSC make many
different amps most of which are not class H, which I have never heard bad
mouthed by anyone. The old Soundcraftsmen Class H amps were always well
reviewed AFAIK.

Given all the different amps QSC makes and that they also seem to be
universally well reviewed and respected,
They are not. Bret and I happen to think they're not suited for hifi.

it would seem only fair to see if
Nothing about you is fair, Mikey. You are a stooge, a dupe, and a weak
minded one to boot.
you have heard any other of their amps.

I picked the PLX series simply because they are touted as for anybody
needing a high quality, high power amp.
Mikey, you ARE a tout. A tout is a dishonest person who does nasty things as
detailed below. You are one of them.

"tout", from http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=tout

1.. [n] one who sells advice about gambling or speculation (especially at
the racetrack)
2.. [n] someone who advertises for customers in an especially brazen way
3.. [n] (British) someone who buys tickets to an event in order to resell
them at a profit
4.. [v] show off
5.. [v] advertize in strongly positive terms; "This product was touted as
a revolutionary invention"

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:
snip

I'm tremendously impressed. Behringer has made an
excellent amplifier at an extremely low price. 50
cents/watt for a fully packaged design is dirt cheap.

I'm ready to buy!

The Behringer will drive a pair of stage monitors, loud,
about as good as a Krell.

The Berhinger will drive any speaker about as well as a Krell, within the
respective amp's performance limits in terms of power and impedance, of
course.

Or perhaps Bret wants us to believe that all Krell amps are the same?

Of course you won't be able to fix it if it breaks,

Why not?

but admittedly you can buy a lot of
Behringers for the price of a Krell. The Krell will drive
really efficient speakers in a living room at a 20-second
averaged output level of 20 mW with superb sonics. The
Behringer will annoy you no end if you have any sort of
ears.

Based on what level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled listening
tests?

I'm betting that in fact Bret has never seen the Behringer A500 in the
flesh, let alone listened to it.


zZounds sells the A500 for $179.00! 160 wpc @ 8ohms. Bridges to 500 watts
mono!
This has to be one of the best buys in audio bar none.

I think anybody at an entry level into good audio should give this amp a try
especially since you could run 2 bridged and still only have spent $358.00
for 500 wpc.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


There is also a subjective observation I can offer: A
QSC amplifier sounds a
lot like a Sunfire, or an (old) Bryston. There may be
some who like that sound. I do not. To me, these
particular amplifiers are abhorent.

How many QSC amps have you listened to?

Ironic that Bob tacitly admits that he never has listened to
any.

Brilliant!

Not all are the same.

What? Mikey, please clarify. I thought you believe that
all properly operating amplifiers sound the same.

A very transparent red herring argument.

Please explain.

You complained that the one amp from QSC you listened to sounded bad, but
you made no attempt to do any sort of bias controlled comparison of it to
anything else.

It was ****ing on my back.

A filthy habit, stop it.

I assume you can't tell when a light is on in the
room, or when the wind is blowing, or whether you are stinking up the
joint.
Let me enlighten you: all three things are happening.

I don't see that you have any such ability.

You also seem to believe that there are different amplifiers
sounds based on the type of amplifier, Class H for example. QSC make
many
different amps most of which are not class H, which I have never heard
bad
mouthed by anyone. The old Soundcraftsmen Class H amps were always well
reviewed AFAIK.

Given all the different amps QSC makes and that they also seem to be
universally well reviewed and respected,
They are not. Bret and I happen to think they're not suited for hifi.

But your ecperience is vastly more limited than the people who use and
review QSC. If they were as bad as you say the company would not have been
around for 30 years.
Your comments about them not being suited for hi -fi are baseless.


it would seem only fair to see if
Nothing about you is fair, Mikey. You are a stooge, a dupe, and a weak
minded one to boot.

An opinion you keep expressing based on zero evidence. Nothing new there.

you have heard any other of their amps.

I picked the PLX series simply because they are touted as for anybody
needing a high quality, high power amp.
Mikey, you ARE a tout. A tout is a dishonest person who does nasty things
as
detailed below. You are one of them.

"tout", from http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=tout

1.. [n] one who sells advice about gambling or speculation (especially
at
the racetrack)
2.. [n] someone who advertises for customers in an especially brazen way
3.. [n] (British) someone who buys tickets to an event in order to
resell
them at a profit
4.. [v] show off
5.. [v] advertize in strongly positive terms; "This product was touted
as
a revolutionary invention"

Consistently, you offer nothing. The word tout was used correctly as per
your number 5 above.

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...


There is also a subjective observation I can offer: A
QSC amplifier sounds a
lot like a Sunfire, or an (old) Bryston. There may be
some who like that sound. I do not. To me, these
particular amplifiers are abhorent.

How many QSC amps have you listened to?

Ironic that Bob tacitly admits that he never has listened to
any.

Brilliant!

Not all are the same.

What? Mikey, please clarify. I thought you believe that
all properly operating amplifiers sound the same.

A very transparent red herring argument.

Please explain.

You complained that the one amp from QSC you listened to sounded bad,
but
you made no attempt to do any sort of bias controlled comparison of it
to
anything else.

It was ****ing on my back.

A filthy habit, stop it.

I assume you can't tell when a light is on in the
room, or when the wind is blowing, or whether you are stinking up the
joint.
Let me enlighten you: all three things are happening.

I don't see that you have any such ability.

You also seem to believe that there are different amplifiers
sounds based on the type of amplifier, Class H for example. QSC make
many
different amps most of which are not class H, which I have never heard
bad
mouthed by anyone. The old Soundcraftsmen Class H amps were always
well
reviewed AFAIK.

Given all the different amps QSC makes and that they also seem to be
universally well reviewed and respected,
They are not. Bret and I happen to think they're not suited for hifi.

But your ecperience is vastly more limited than the people who use and
review QSC. If they were as bad as you say the company would not have
been
around for 30 years.
Your comments about them not being suited for hi -fi are baseless.


it would seem only fair to see if
Nothing about you is fair, Mikey. You are a stooge, a dupe, and a weak
minded one to boot.

An opinion you keep expressing based on zero evidence. Nothing new there.

you have heard any other of their amps.

I picked the PLX series simply because they are touted as for anybody
needing a high quality, high power amp.
Mikey, you ARE a tout. A tout is a dishonest person who does nasty
things
as
detailed below. You are one of them.

"tout", from http://hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=tout

1.. [n] one who sells advice about gambling or speculation (especially
at
the racetrack)
2.. [n] someone who advertises for customers in an especially brazen
way
3.. [n] (British) someone who buys tickets to an event in order to
resell
them at a profit
4.. [v] show off
5.. [v] advertize in strongly positive terms; "This product was touted
as
a revolutionary invention"

Consistently, you offer nothing. The word tout was used correctly as per
your number 5 above.

It was used as per definition number two. Be honest with yourself.