My thoughts on McIntosh
Bret Ludwig
the local Mc dealer. Someone at Mc responded with a letter that was
civil and reasonable.
That's a good thing.
I have some good and some not so good thoughts about McIntosh and the
direction it has went the last few years. They are still in Binghamton
and still building stuff with American employees and that's a good
thing. The pay isn't great but the good paying employers in
Binghamton, as elsewhere in upstate NY and the US generally, aren't
paying anything because they are gone, or outsourcing and hiring only
lawyers and MBAs. Their equipment is of fairly decent quality, you can
definitely buy worse, and for more money.
Some Mc pieces are solid in category items, some okay, some I am not
at all a fan of.
Value for money with mc products varies but let's be honest, the
price to build cost ratio is high. Very high. I don't mind the high
price per se, but if I am going to buy something as expensive as that
I want something that has the feel and heft of real commercial grade
electronics. Look inside Tek and HP test equipment, Collins,
Hammarlund, ITT Mackay Marine, even Motorola (nonconsumer-Micor,
Motrac, Moxy two way, or GE Prog Line). Look at the milled aluminum
blocks in a IFR service monitor or a Potomac FIMs attenuator. Look at
classic Telefunken, Ampex, Fairchild studio gear, Neve modules. That's
what you want in a $7000 amplifier or a $3500 CD player. The old
chrometop tube Mc amps were built like Fender guitar amps of their
era: the reissue 275 is built like, well, it's about like a cheap St.
Louis Music Kornblum Ampeg. Hartley Peavey does better than that
sometimes.
Mc design can be pretty backward and stay that way. For all the
howling about tube amps being obsolete (before Clarion made them do it
like it or not) their solid state amps are built like a tube amp in
the worst way: structurally, with bolt-on small heatsinks. If you are
going to build solid state amps-and personally I think that's all you
should build-it's time to upgrade to 1980 and go to big side heat
sinks like a big Motorola base station-or hundreds of high end amps.
It's also probably time to abandon bipolar finals for FETs.
As far as the speaker line goes-I'm prejudiced: I've never liked Mc
speakers. Then again I don't like most of the high end speakers being
vended like Thiel, Definitive Technology, or any of the other brands
the local high end whorehouses carry. I much prefer a good Tannoy DC
or Altec Duplex driver or a K-horn with its Mickey Mouse Avedon T-35
tweeters and harsh bong hit squawker upgraded. That said they are
expensive and unrealistic sounding. Legacy is that same way, just less
expensive.
Arny Krueger
news:1174871864....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> I sent a copy of one of my more well reasoned posts to
> Mcintosh and the local Mc dealer. Someone at Mc responded
> with a letter that was civil and reasonable.
>
> That's a good thing.
>
> I have some good and some not so good thoughts about
> McIntosh and the direction it has went the last few
> years. They are still in Binghamton and still building
> stuff with American employees and that's a good thing.
> The pay isn't great but the good paying employers in
> Binghamton, as elsewhere in upstate NY and the US
> generally, aren't paying anything because they are gone,
> or outsourcing and hiring only lawyers and MBAs. Their
> equipment is of fairly decent quality, you can definitely
> buy worse, and for more money.
Bret loves to ponitificiate about things he actually doesn't know anything
about.
Binghamton is part of the Binghamton-Endicott-Johnson City metroplex,
stretched out on the north shore of the Susquehanna River over about 10
miles. There's a major freeway that ties the area together, as well as a
thick network of surface roads. Endicott is home to a major IBM complex that
has employment opportunities for technicans and managers at all levels. How
big? The IBM Employee's Club, which is about halfway between Endicott and
Bignhamton, has a full 18 hole golf course on its grounds.
I've personally spent several months, about a week at a time, teaching IBM
employees about computer operating system internals. I've got more than a
passing familiarity with the Johnson City Best Western Hotel and other
businesses in the area. ;-)
There are other major technical businesses in the area, including Link -
developer and manufacturers of flight training simulators.
Bret's claim that "Binghamton, as elsewhere in upstate NY and the US
generally, aren't paying anything..." is yet another figment of his
imagination.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
The Krooborg reflects on the good old days.
> I've personally spent several months, about a week at a time, teaching IBM
> employees about computer operating system internals.
It's good to know there was a time when you weren't insane, Arnii. When
did that period end -- around 1967? Or did you stagger into the '70s
before you started worrying about conspiracies against you from dawn
till dusk?
--
Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.
Peter Wieck
Yo, commander:
Have you reached puberty yet? Whatever Arny may or may not be, he is
not a brain-dead, thoughtless, half-hatched git as you are.
As to Bret, one day he will actually have a thought... the world will
stand still on its axis, and Hell will begin selling dry ice.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Arny Krueger
news:1174921687.6...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> On Mar 26, 10:27 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @
> comcast . net> wrote:
>> The Krooborg reflects on the good old days.
>>
>>> I've personally spent several months, about a week at a
>>> time, teaching IBM employees about computer operating
>>> system internals.
>>
>> It's good to know there was a time when you weren't
>> insane, Arnii. When did that period end -- around 1967?
>> Or did you stagger into the '70s before you started
>> worrying about conspiracies against you from dawn till
>> dusk?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and
>> excellence.
> Yo, commander:
> Have you reached puberty yet?
Good question. Tghe Middiot's mental aging process seems to be in reverse -
he might have already passed puberty going backwards.
> Whatever Arny may or may
> not be, he is not a brain-dead, thoughtless, half-hatched git as you are.
I know of none that compare with the Middiot.
> As to Bret, one day he will actually have a thought...
> the world will stand still on its axis, and Hell will
> begin selling dry ice.
Even with all those major flaws, no way can Bret be compared to the Middiot.
Bret at least knows how to spell the words...
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
The Krooborg gets a stiffy from Worthless Wiecky.
> Even with all those major flaws, no way can Bret be compared to the Middiot.
Arnii, you just said something truthful. Are you feeling OK? I realize
it may have been an inadvertent act of not lying, but just in case,
perhaps you should visit Dr. Kroomacher for a checkup.
> Bret at least knows how to spell the words...
That's an odd assertion from a krazy kreature like yourself, Arnii. Your
own version of spelling is so eccentric as to border on the nonhuman.
Maybe the stigma of functional illiteracy is the bond you share with
Bratwig. Speaking of which, Brattie's family finally came out of hiding:
http://members.tripod.com/joearay2/afp/guts.h1.jpg
Bret Ludwig
> Binghamton is part of the Binghamton-Endicott-Johnson City metroplex,
> stretched out on the north shore of the Susquehanna River over about 10
> miles. There's a major freeway that ties the area together, as well as a
> thick network of surface roads. Endicott is home to a major IBM complex that
> has employment opportunities for technicans and managers at all levels. How
> big? The IBM Employee's Club, which is about halfway between Endicott and
> Bignhamton, has a full 18 hole golf course on its grounds.
>
> I've personally spent several months, about a week at a time, teaching IBM
> employees about computer operating system internals.
This, explains a lot.
I've got more than a
> passing familiarity with the Johnson City Best Western Hotel and other
> businesses in the area. ;-)
>
> There are other major technical businesses in the area, including Link -
> developer and manufacturers of flight training simulators.
>
> Bret's claim that "Binghamton, as elsewhere in upstate NY and the US
> generally, aren't paying anything..." is yet another figment of his
> imagination.
Mc was what we call a "starter company". They hired people at the
start of whatever career chain, typically, and then they'd move on to -
as Arny correctly names-most typically IBM or Link if they stayed in
the area, or Xerox or Kodak going north, or points south and west
typically. The problem is there just aren't that many other companies
hiring now.
I can't think of any big names in audio Mc ever hired after they were
a known thing.
robert casey
> Binghamton is part of the Binghamton-Endicott-Johnson City metroplex,
> stretched out on the north shore of the Susquehanna River over about 10
> miles. There's a major freeway that ties the area together, as well as a
> thick network of surface roads. Endicott is home to a major IBM complex that
> has employment opportunities for technicans and managers at all levels. How
> big? The IBM Employee's Club, which is about halfway between Endicott and
> Bignhamton, has a full 18 hole golf course on its grounds.
It's a fairly generic mid sized to smaller American city. Just like a
hundred other such metro areas around the USA. Just like Allentown PA,
Austin TX, Portland Or, Phoenix AZ, Syracuse NY, and so on. Places like
Silicon Valley, NYC or Boston are significantly special, but have high
cost of living.
>
>
> There are other major technical businesses in the area, including Link -
> developer and manufacturers of flight training simulators.
I worked there as a new engineer about 25 years ago. Your standard issue
defense contractor company job. Video systems and circuits in what
would now be called "high def" resolutions for the flight simulators.
Left there when I got a job at the RCA Sarnoff R&D lab in Princeton.
>
> Bret's claim that "Binghamton, as elsewhere in upstate NY and the US
> generally, aren't paying anything..." is yet another figment of his
> imagination.
>
Cost of living up there was about half that of Princeton NJ back around
1980 and probably still that way today. That's for rent, other expenses
are so small compared to cost of housing, that you can ignore them when
talking about cost of living. But employers probably have to pay a
little extra to get engineers to take jobs in small towns in "the middle
of nowhere", compared to large engineering centers like Silicon Valley.
Bret Ludwig
>
> Cost of living up there was about half that of Princeton NJ back around
> 1980 and probably still that way today. That's for rent, other expenses
> are so small compared to cost of housing, that you can ignore them when
> talking about cost of living. But employers probably have to pay a
> little extra to get engineers to take jobs in small towns in "the middle
> of nowhere", compared to large engineering centers like Silicon Valley.
They will pay a premium to upper management and that's it. Mc
engineers tend to come out of RIT or RPI, and be people like you see
in the Liv Tyler movie, "Heavy". Techs, assemblers, plant maintenance
are all stereotypical upstate bowlers.
I have several friends who lived in that area at one time or another
and a couple who worked at Mc or their parents, siblings once did.
They are a decent employer if you can live on the pay, treat their
employees with dignity. I have been to the plant but never been
through it. I like the Southern Tier a lot geographically-beats the
hell out of Kansas. I flew into the Harris Hill sailport in a radial
engine Polish Wilga in '89 with the Wilga demo pilot. What a ride.
Karl Uppiano
> It's also probably time to abandon bipolar finals for FETs.
Why is that?
Trevor Wilson
"Karl Uppiano" <karl.u...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:L8%Nh.21253$Ht2.9959@trnddc06...
**Given Brett's other delusions, it seems hardly surprising that he thinks
MOSFETs (I suspect he doesn't really mean FETs), with their higher
distortion, higher cost and compressive effects make any kind of sense in a
quality amplifier.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Karl Uppiano
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4608839f$0$16400$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
> "Karl Uppiano" <karl.u...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:L8%Nh.21253$Ht2.9959@trnddc06...
>>
>> "Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1174871864....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> It's also probably time to abandon bipolar finals for FETs.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
> **Given Brett's other delusions, it seems hardly surprising that he thinks
> MOSFETs (I suspect he doesn't really mean FETs), with their higher
> distortion, higher cost and compressive effects make any kind of sense in
> a quality amplifier.
Right. Implementation details. They could use crayons if they fulfill the
engineering requirements.
Brian
Are you insane? have you ever heard one? examined one? held one?
Igor
Bret Ludwig
I'd seen pictures but it was only a week ago I got to see one in the
flesh (the reissue) with the bottom off. It's basically all one PCB.
The transformers are EI lam parts. Look at the schematic: see those
Zener diodes? Show me where they are on the old one.
In fact, why don't you put up pictures somewhere of the insides of a
new and old one? I don't care about the pretty exterior. it's
irrelevant.
Bret Ludwig
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "Karl Uppiano" <karl.uppi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:L8%Nh.21253$Ht2.9959@trnddc06...
>
>
>
> > "Bret Ludwig" <bretld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1174871864....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >> It's also probably time to abandon bipolar finals for FETs.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> **Given Brett's other delusions, it seems hardly surprising that he thinks
> MOSFETs (I suspect he doesn't really mean FETs), with their higher
> distortion, higher cost and compressive effects make any kind of sense in a
> quality amplifier.
Trevor, it's well known that your definition of a "quality amplifier"
is rather eccentric.
Many more of the better amplifiers are built with MOSFET finals than
bipolars today.
Trevor Wilson
> On Mar 26, 10:31 pm, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>> "Karl Uppiano" <karl.uppi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:L8%Nh.21253$Ht2.9959@trnddc06...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bret Ludwig" <bretld...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1174871864....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> It's also probably time to abandon bipolar finals for FETs.
>>
>> > Why is that?
>>
>> **Given Brett's other delusions, it seems hardly surprising that he
>> thinks
>> MOSFETs (I suspect he doesn't really mean FETs), with their higher
>> distortion, higher cost and compressive effects make any kind of sense in
>> a
>> quality amplifier.
>
> Trevor, it's well known that your definition of a "quality amplifier"
> is rather eccentric.
**LOL! You still hung up on putting output transformers into, otherwise
decent, amplifiers?
>
> Many more of the better amplifiers are built with MOSFET finals than
> bipolars today.
**Wanna bet?
However, you STILL forget that MOSFETS:
* Are MUCH higher distortion at modest bias current than modern BJTs (around
TEN TIMES the distortion).
* Are somewhat higher distortion, at high bias currents than modern BJTs.
* Compress audio signals, unless they are operated at very high bias
currents.
* For a given peak current capability, cost significantly more than modern
BJTs.
* Are not available in precisely matched mirror imaged pairs (ie: P-channel
and N-channel devices are not the same)
I will certainly acknowledge that, for lazy designers, MOSFETs offer a great
deal, as they are easy to drive, easy to protect, etc and they would
certainly be choice of output device, if I were to build a switching
amplifier. For high quality linear applications, BJTs are the best choice.
Trevor Wilson
"Brian" <bcm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175016341....@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
**Dunno about Brett, but I've worked a on a few. They're certainly nothing
special. They reek of cheap construction. I don't know about the output
transformers, but all the other components are just plain old off-the-shelf
stuff. Certainly nothing to justify the monstrous prices. Sound quality is
average. Compared to a really good tube amp, like an ARC VT100, they are
extremely average sounding.
Bret Ludwig
> > "The old
> > chrometop tube Mc amps were built like Fender guitar amps of their
> > era: the reissue 275 is built like, well, it's about like a cheap St.
> > Louis Music Kornblum Ampeg. Hartley Peavey does better than that
> > sometimes"
>
> > Are you insane? have you ever heard one? examined one? held one?
>
> **Dunno about Brett, but I've worked a on a few. They're certainly nothing
> special. They reek of cheap construction. I don't know about the output
> transformers, but all the other components are just plain old off-the-shelf
> stuff. Certainly nothing to justify the monstrous prices. Sound quality is
> average. Compared to a really good tube amp, like an ARC VT100, they are
> extremely average sounding.
I would not consider the VT100 or any ARC product an exemplar of
really good tube sound. Well, that isn't strictly true: the early 80s
preamps had fine phono sections.
I have worked on MC250, MC2300, MAC1500s, C20 and C26 pre's, several
other Mc solid state and tube models-5100s, 352s. They are not a big
deal, but are conservatively designed, seem mostly to hold up well. So
do other less expensive brands certainly. Mc made a autoformerless
large power amp and it performed well but sold modestly so they quit.
The price is ridiculous but so are ARC, Krell, VTL/Manley, Mark
"Failed Sex Expert" Levinson, Jeff "DeepFried Alumnus" Rowland, etc,
etc, etc.
Trevor Wilson
>
>> > "The old
>> > chrometop tube Mc amps were built like Fender guitar amps of their
>> > era: the reissue 275 is built like, well, it's about like a cheap St.
>> > Louis Music Kornblum Ampeg. Hartley Peavey does better than that
>> > sometimes"
>>
>> > Are you insane? have you ever heard one? examined one? held one?
>>
>> **Dunno about Brett, but I've worked a on a few. They're certainly
>> nothing
>> special. They reek of cheap construction. I don't know about the output
>> transformers, but all the other components are just plain old
>> off-the-shelf
>> stuff. Certainly nothing to justify the monstrous prices. Sound quality
>> is
>> average. Compared to a really good tube amp, like an ARC VT100, they are
>> extremely average sounding.
>
> I would not consider the VT100 or any ARC product an exemplar of
> really good tube sound.
**Why? Don't you like accurate amplifiers?
bassett
Buying any Mcintosh product through a dealer, and the stuff is grosly
over priced, They give the same old crap, about import duties,
freight costs, Blah, Blah. Buy the stuff in Dubai, and it's a quarter
of the price, compaired with what official dealers expect . There
service is just as good, and freight costs are reasonable
bassett.
Bret Ludwig
> Buying any Mcintosh product through a dealer, and the stuff is grosly
> over priced, They give the same old crap, about import duties,
> freight costs, Blah, Blah. Buy the stuff in Dubai, and it's a quarter
> of the price, compaired with what official dealers expect . There
> service is just as good, and freight costs are reasonable
> bassett.
What does a new MCD 201 go foor from a Dubai dealer?
Mr.T
> However, you STILL forget that MOSFETS:
> * Are MUCH higher distortion at modest bias current than modern BJTs
(around
> TEN TIMES the distortion).
> * Are somewhat higher distortion, at high bias currents than modern BJTs.
> * Compress audio signals, unless they are operated at very high bias
> currents.
> * For a given peak current capability, cost significantly more than modern
> BJTs.
> * Are not available in precisely matched mirror imaged pairs (ie:
P-channel
> and N-channel devices are not the same)
>
> I will certainly acknowledge that, for lazy designers, MOSFETs offer a
great
> deal, as they are easy to drive, easy to protect, etc and they would
> certainly be choice of output device, if I were to build a switching
> amplifier. For high quality linear applications, BJTs are the best choice.
Most of your assertions fall in the "so what" category given that the best
performing amps available use either MosFETs or BiPolars, depending on the
designer.
I will agree that simply using MosFETSs does not make an amplifier any
better.
MrT.
Trevor Wilson
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4609fd94$0$15781$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
**Nope. The best amps use BJTs. The only highly rated MOSFET amps operate at
very high bias levels.
> I will agree that simply using MosFETSs does not make an amplifier any
> better.
**Of course. And using BJTs does not automatically make an amplifier better.
Mr.T
> > I would not consider the VT100 or any ARC product an exemplar of
> > really good tube sound.
>
> **Why? Don't you like accurate amplifiers?
An accurate valve amp. Isn't that an oxymoron :-)
But then the whole point of a valve amp is not to be accurate, it's to add
that "warm valve sound".
MrT.
Trevor Wilson
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
**Clearly, you've not heard an ARC VT100. I suggest you do so. Very
accurate, given a relatively benign load, of course.
Mr.T
> > Most of your assertions fall in the "so what" category given that the
best
> > performing amps available use either MosFETs or BiPolars, depending on
the
> > designer.
>
> **Nope. The best amps use BJTs. The only highly rated MOSFET amps operate
at
> very high bias levels.
You do seem to have a paranoia complex about bias levels! Have a bad
experiece when you were a child by any chance?
> > I will agree that simply using MosFETSs does not make an amplifier any
> > better.
>
> **Of course. And using BJTs does not automatically make an amplifier
better.
Exactly!
MrT.
Mr.T
> > But then the whole point of a valve amp is not to be accurate, it's to
add
> > that "warm valve sound".
>
> **Clearly, you've not heard an ARC VT100. I suggest you do so. Very
> accurate, given a relatively benign load, of course.
Why bother, wouldn't it sound just like any good solid state amp then?
MrT.
Trevor Wilson
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4609f1e2$0$30102$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> > Most of your assertions fall in the "so what" category given that the
> best
>> > performing amps available use either MosFETs or BiPolars, depending on
> the
>> > designer.
>>
>> **Nope. The best amps use BJTs. The only highly rated MOSFET amps operate
> at
>> very high bias levels.
>
> You do seem to have a paranoia complex about bias levels! Have a bad
> experiece when you were a child by any chance?
**Examine the transfer characteristic of a MOSFET sometime. All will become
clear. At low bias currents, MOSFETs generate much more distortion than
BJTs. At high bias currents, the difference is much less noticable.
Trevor Wilson
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
**Yep. A masterful effort, IMO. Many tube amps DON'T sound like good SS
amps.
Arny Krueger
> Most of your assertions fall in the "so what" category
Agreed - they are more about prejudice than facts.
> given that the best performing amps available use either
> MosFETs or BiPolars, depending on the designer.
Agreed - there's no doubt that good amps can be made using either kind of
semiconductor.
> I will agree that simply using MosFETSs does not make an
> amplifier any better.
Also agreed.
Mr.T
>
> **Examine the transfer characteristic of a MOSFET sometime. All will
become
> clear. At low bias currents, MOSFETs generate much more distortion than
> BJTs. At high bias currents, the difference is much less noticable.
Which still doesn't explain your paranoia for larger bias currents
unfortunately.
MrT.
Patrick Turner
Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
> news:460a0326$0$5747$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:4609f1e2$0$30102$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> >> > Most of your assertions fall in the "so what" category given that the
> > best
> >> > performing amps available use either MosFETs or BiPolars, depending on
> > the
> >> > designer.
> >>
> >> **Nope. The best amps use BJTs. The only highly rated MOSFET amps operate
> > at
> >> very high bias levels.
> >
> > You do seem to have a paranoia complex about bias levels! Have a bad
> > experiece when you were a child by any chance?
>
> **Examine the transfer characteristic of a MOSFET sometime. All will become
> clear. At low bias currents, MOSFETs generate much more distortion than
> BJTs. At high bias currents, the difference is much less noticable.
But Trev, I think you may be technically incorrect, and your grossly
over simplistic comment here
indicates you have a mind incapable of any deep insights into the range
of possibilities
which can be used to get equally excellent audio from either BJTs or
mosfets.
BJTs have exponential transfer curves, and have appalling distortion
levels,
as my recent posts on a test of a class A 2N3904 recently showed.
But notice how 37dB of series current NFB straightened out the mess to
about equal a triode....
Mosfets have square law transfer curves, and are also non linear,
but spectra favour more even order H, and these are very nicely
cancelled in PP action and a classic
example of linear mosfet output amps is Halcro, with 0.0001% THD even at
20kHz at 199W,
using a shirtload of NFB,
and more humbly, the Zeus amps made by a very pleasant british woman,
Sue Parker, see
http://www.susan-parker.co.uk/audiophonics.html
This design uses a pair of class A mosfets and relies on what is a
minimal
amount of series voltage NFB for adequate linearity with a source
follower connection.
I have also done linear class A mosfet amps that are just as excellent
as the best of BJT amps
using the schematic I designed at
http://www.turneraudio.com.au/solidstateamps4-50w-mono-mosfet.html
My experience building mosfet based amplifiers up to 350 watts
capability
using 100mA of bias through each of the multiple devices reveals mosfets
are every bit as capable as anyone could wish for.
They are also much easier to use and drive and do not suffer from low
Rin,
and don't suffer cross conduction just above 20kHz.
Mcintosh made some exceptionally fine amps using both tubes and BJTs and
with transformer coupling,
which allowed much more load matching flexibility.
However, there are many fine examples of SET amplifiers which we all
know you hate,
for a potpourie of irrational reasons, and I leave you with all your pet
irrationalities
which are set in concrete somewhere in your brain, and insulated from
the challenges of the outside world.
Many devices are out there, and all can provide great audio
if used wisely, and anyone trying to tell me mosfets suck
will have a hard time convincing me indeed.
I suggest Mr Wilson direct his many talents towards the
design and construction of a decent mosfet amp, and he should find he
has no trouble equalling the best of BJT amps.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
Before wasting too much of your valuable time debating the same old
debate yet again
with Trev about biasing, have a look at a much more knowledgeable pair
of experts
on SS design; Douglas Self at
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/ampins.htm
And for something which supports lowish bias currents in BJTs,
The late Mr Linsley Hood had something to contribute, see
http://www.tcaas.btinternet.co.uk/jlhab3.htm
Patrick Turner.
Bret Ludwig
wrote:
> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>
> news:460a03c1$0$9775$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
>
> > "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:4609f33e$0$16277$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> >> > But then the whole point of a valve amp is not to be accurate, it's to
> > add
> >> > that "warm valve sound".
>
> >> **Clearly, you've not heard an ARC VT100. I suggest you do so. Very
> >> accurate, given a relatively benign load, of course.
>
> > Why bother, wouldn't it sound just like any good solid state amp then?
>
> **Yep. A masterful effort, IMO. Many tube amps DON'T sound like good SS
> amps.
Most ARC tube amps sound like mediocre solid state amps.
There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier but by using a good low
impedance power supply, a good output transformer and a reasonable
amount of NFB a tube amp can be built that is better than the solid
state ones I moostly hear. However excellent solid state ones also
exist. Either tech works: one takes more serious engineering.
Trevor Wilson
> On Mar 28, 5:22 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
>>
>> news:460a03c1$0$9775$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> >news:4609f33e$0$16277$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>> >> > But then the whole point of a valve amp is not to be accurate, it's
>> >> > to
>> > add
>> >> > that "warm valve sound".
>>
>> >> **Clearly, you've not heard an ARC VT100. I suggest you do so. Very
>> >> accurate, given a relatively benign load, of course.
>>
>> > Why bother, wouldn't it sound just like any good solid state amp then?
>>
>> **Yep. A masterful effort, IMO. Many tube amps DON'T sound like good SS
>> amps.
>
> Most ARC tube amps sound like mediocre solid state amps.
**Your attempt to move from the specific to the general is duly noted. I
SPECIFICALLY mentioned the ARC VT100. It is a superb sounding power amp.
>
> There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier but by using a good low
> impedance power supply, a good output transformer and a reasonable
> amount of NFB a tube amp can be built that is better than the solid
> state ones I moostly hear.
**Clearly, you only listen to crap.
However excellent solid state ones also
> exist. Either tech works: one takes more serious engineering.
**Duh.
paul packer
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>Before wasting too much of your valuable time debating the same old
>debate yet again with Trev
That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
What is a "headphone outlet"? Congrats on not Krooglishing, BTW.
--
Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.
Trevor Wilson
"paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:460b08d...@news.iprimus.com.au...
**Your piss-poor attempts at revisionist history is duly noted. Go read my
comments again. My last post to you, listed a handful of commonly available
amplifiers which employ dedicated headphone amplifiers, as you requested.
You failed to comment. I can only draw the conclusion that you finally agree
with me.
Mr.T
> > >> **Clearly, you've not heard an ARC VT100. I suggest you do so. Very
> > >> accurate, given a relatively benign load, of course.
> >
> > > Why bother, wouldn't it sound just like any good solid state amp then?
> >
> > **Yep. A masterful effort, IMO. Many tube amps DON'T sound like good SS
> > amps.
>
> Most ARC tube amps sound like mediocre solid state amps.
>
> There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier but by using a good low
> impedance power supply, a good output transformer and a reasonable
> amount of NFB a tube amp can be built that is better than the solid
> state ones I moostly hear. However excellent solid state ones also
> exist. Either tech works: one takes more serious engineering.
And then costs far more money than a similar performance solid state amp.
MrT.
dizzy
> have a look at a much more knowledgeable pair
> of experts on SS design; Douglas Self
...who agrees with me regarding tone controls...
8)
paul packer
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>news:460b08d...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:51:52 GMT, Patrick Turner
>> <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Before wasting too much of your valuable time debating the same old
>>>debate yet again with Trev
>>
>> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
>
>**Your piss-poor attempts at revisionist history is duly noted.
Revisionist history? Don't remember us discussing that at all.
> Go read my comments again. My last post to you, listed a handful of commonly available
>amplifiers which employ dedicated headphone amplifiers, as you requested.
A handful is correct. And I suggest that's about the extent of it.
>You failed to comment. I can only draw the conclusion that you finally agree
>with me.
I failed to comment for the reason stated above, that I can only argue
the same subject till I'm blue in the face, after which I usually
collapse and have to be revived.
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
>
>What is a "headphone outlet"? Congrats on not Krooglishing, BTW.
Is this another trick question, George? I'm still getting over the
last one.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
> >What is a "headphone outlet"? Congrats on not Krooglishing, BTW.
> Is this another trick question, George? I'm still getting over the
> last one.
Thanks for admitting you murdered your mum.
Trevor Wilson
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:40:49 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:460b08d...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:51:52 GMT, Patrick Turner
>>> <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Before wasting too much of your valuable time debating the same old
>>>>debate yet again with Trev
>>>
>>> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
>>
>>**Your piss-poor attempts at revisionist history is duly noted.
>
> Revisionist history? Don't remember us discussing that at all.
**You're the one revising history.
>
>> Go read my comments again. My last post to you, listed a handful of
>> commonly available
>>amplifiers which employ dedicated headphone amplifiers, as you requested.
>
> A handful is correct. And I suggest that's about the extent of it.
**Suggest all you wish. I grabbed 15, easy to reach service manuals and that
is what I came up with. Moreover, I need to remind you of your words:
Trevor: "**Nope. I can cite one or two which are hardly exotic, but use
dedicated headphone amplifiers."
Paul: "Please do so."
I cited the evidence of SIX amplifiers. Well in excess of your request. I
promise you: The list is much longer. Frankly, I was surprised that I could
find so many, so easily.
>
>>You failed to comment. I can only draw the conclusion that you finally
>>agree
>>with me.
>
> I failed to comment for the reason stated above, that I can only argue
> the same subject till I'm blue in the face, after which I usually
> collapse and have to be revived.
**There is an alternative - You are wrong but prefer not to acknowledge it.
A not altogether surprising fact, given the breadth and depth of your
technical abilities and qualifications.
RDOGuy
> What does a new MCD 201 go foor from a Dubai dealer?
Make sure and include the Halliburton discount! :)
paul packer
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
And would you like a small plaque? I'll have one made up.
>>>You failed to comment. I can only draw the conclusion that you finally
>>>agree
>>>with me.
>>
>> I failed to comment for the reason stated above, that I can only argue
>> the same subject till I'm blue in the face, after which I usually
>> collapse and have to be revived.
>
>**There is an alternative - You are wrong but prefer not to acknowledge it.
About what? I claimed that most headphone outlets, at least in budget
amps,are driven from the output stage through resistors. Quote as many
exceptions as you like, to me they only prove the rule.
>A not altogether surprising fact, given the breadth and depth of your
>technical abilities and qualifications.
Perhaps you'd like to quote from those posts where I claimed technical
qualifications and abilities.
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
>
>> >What is a "headphone outlet"? Congrats on not Krooglishing, BTW.
>
>> Is this another trick question, George? I'm still getting over the
>> last one.
>
>Thanks for admitting you murdered your mum.
Did I? I wondered why I hadn't seen her about lately.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >> >> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
> >> >What is a "headphone outlet"? Congrats on not Krooglishing, BTW.
> >> Is this another trick question, George? I'm still getting over the
> >> last one.
> >Thanks for admitting you murdered your mum.
> Did I? I wondered why I hadn't seen her about lately.
You just fell into my trap. We now know your euphemism "headphone
outlet" really means "guillotine basket".
Trevor Wilson
**A simple 'thank you', along with an admission that such systems are not
uncommon, even in modestly priced amplifiers will be sufficient. Instead,
you chose to say:
"A handful is correct. And I suggest that's about the extent of it."
And I will ask the question on everyone's lips: What are your technical
qualifications and your experience, which allow to you determine such a
thing (bearing in mind that, without examining the schematic, you will have
real difficulty in knowing if an amp is fitted with a dedicated headphone
amp)?
>
>>>>You failed to comment. I can only draw the conclusion that you finally
>>>>agree
>>>>with me.
>>>
>>> I failed to comment for the reason stated above, that I can only argue
>>> the same subject till I'm blue in the face, after which I usually
>>> collapse and have to be revived.
>>
>>**There is an alternative - You are wrong but prefer not to acknowledge
>>it.
>
> About what? I claimed that most headphone outlets, at least in budget
> amps,are driven from the output stage through resistors. Quote as many
> exceptions as you like, to me they only prove the rule.
**LOL! All the amps I listed are budget amps. And, in one sense I agree with
you: MOST amps are not fitted with dedicated headphone amplifiers. That,
notwithstanding, does not mean that a very large number are so fitted.
>
>>A not altogether surprising fact, given the breadth and depth of your
>>technical abilities and qualifications.
>
> Perhaps you'd like to quote from those posts where I claimed technical
> qualifications and abilities.
**That is precisely the point. You continue to argue with me, from a point
of weakness. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would do so.
The appropriate response from you, should be (to paraphrase): "Oh, is that
right, Trevor? Thanks for the information. I shall try not to mislead people
with my clear lack of technical abilities any more."
Unlike you, I KNOW what I am talking about. I am not stupid enough to claim
that by cursorily examining an amplifier, that I can tell if it uses a
headphone amplifier or not. I know that it often takes much more. Including
an examination of the schematic. Additionally and more importantly, I know
that the sound of an amplifier, when operating through headphones, may be
fundamentally different to that same amp when operating with headphones. I
also know several other things:
* I've listened to and tested several VERY good headphone amplifiers,
through Senn 580s.
* I know that some dedicated headphone amps within amplifiers sound very
good and some sound very bad. An examination of the schematic usually
reveals the reasons why.
paul packer
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>And I will ask the question on everyone's lips:
Really? Our little discussion is that interesting?
> What are your technical
>qualifications and your experience, which allow to you determine such a
>thing (bearing in mind that, without examining the schematic, you will have
>real difficulty in knowing if an amp is fitted with a dedicated headphone
>amp)?
That's exactly what I'm arguing: that in the majority of cases one
doesn't need an electronics degree but simply good eyesight to see how
the headphone outlet is driven. There are of course exceptions. For
instance yesterday I took delivery of a Denon PMA 250III, took a look
inside and lo, not for the first time I wasn't able to determine how
the HP outlet was being driven; for that, yes, I would have needed to
be able to read a schematic. Read my posts again and reassure
yourself that I'm claiming nothing but decent eyesight and common
sense. Do you see me talking gobbledegook about ohms, watts and volts?
I think not.
>>>>>You failed to comment. I can only draw the conclusion that you finally
>>>>>agree
>>>>>with me.
>>>>
>>>> I failed to comment for the reason stated above, that I can only argue
>>>> the same subject till I'm blue in the face, after which I usually
>>>> collapse and have to be revived.
>>>
>>>**There is an alternative - You are wrong but prefer not to acknowledge
>>>it.
>>
>> About what? I claimed that most headphone outlets, at least in budget
>> amps,are driven from the output stage through resistors. Quote as many
>> exceptions as you like, to me they only prove the rule.
>
>**LOL! All the amps I listed are budget amps. And, in one sense I agree with
>you: MOST amps are not fitted with dedicated headphone amplifiers. That,
>notwithstanding, does not mean that a very large number are so fitted.
Damn, Trevor, I read that last sentence ten times and still couldn't
get it. Must be me.
>>>A not altogether surprising fact, given the breadth and depth of your
>>>technical abilities and qualifications.
>>
>> Perhaps you'd like to quote from those posts where I claimed technical
>> qualifications and abilities.
>
>**That is precisely the point. You continue to argue with me, from a point
>of weakness. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would do so.
>The appropriate response from you, should be (to paraphrase): "Oh, is that
>right, Trevor? Thanks for the information. I shall try not to mislead people
>with my clear lack of technical abilities any more."
Mislead people? Which people are those? You're the only person I've
ever discussed it with.
>Unlike you, I KNOW what I am talking about. I am not stupid enough to claim
>that by cursorily examining an amplifier, that I can tell if it uses a
>headphone amplifier or not. I know that it often takes much more. Including
>an examination of the schematic.
As above. I've already acknowledged that, indeed never denied it--in
some cases. I see that you write "I know that it often takes much
more". Are you thus acknowledging with your "often" that it sometimes
doesn't?
> Additionally and more importantly, I know
>that the sound of an amplifier, when operating through headphones, may be
>fundamentally different to that same amp when operating with headphones.
I'm assuming that last "headphones" should be "speakers". Or am I
missing something?
IAC, here's a thought not directly related to our discussion. I
suggest that using a separate HP amp is a form of fraud. When someone
buys an amp they do so on the basis of reviews, what they heard
through speakers in the shop, the amp's reputation. All of which is
based on what the amp sounds like through the speaker outlets. The HP
user has a right to expect the same sound through the HP outlet as the
speaker user gets, or alternatively, the guy using speakers has the
right to expect the same sound through the HP outlet, not the sounds
of some cheap IC.
>also know several other things:
>* I've listened to and tested several VERY good headphone amplifiers,
>through Senn 580s.
The Senn 580s are an acquired taste I never acquired, but never mind.
>* I know that some dedicated headphone amps within amplifiers sound very
>good and some sound very bad. An examination of the schematic usually
>reveals the reasons why.
Which doesn't much help those of us without, or unable to interpret,
schematics. Which is another reason why dedicated HP amps within amps
are a bad idea (apart also from adding to the cost for no good
reason). While some amps get reviewed, the sound of the amp through
HPs is never reviewed, so if separate HP amps are used, even buying a
highly reviewed amp gives no guarantee of satisfaction for HP users.
At least if he HP outlet is driven by the output stage you're
basically getting what the reviewers, and maybe your mates, were
raving about.
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> >> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
>
>> >> >What is a "headphone outlet"? Congrats on not Krooglishing, BTW.
>
>> >> Is this another trick question, George? I'm still getting over the
>> >> last one.
>
>> >Thanks for admitting you murdered your mum.
>
>> Did I? I wondered why I hadn't seen her about lately.
>
>You just fell into my trap. We now know your euphemism "headphone
>outlet" really means "guillotine basket".
Why is that I only ever doubt my sanity after reading your posts,
George?
Peter Wieck
> Why is that I only ever doubt my sanity after reading your posts,
> George?
If only because one seldom comes across such consistently vapid posts.
One is left somewhat in the position of the gentleman who asked a
small child why he was digging so assiduously in a heap of manure. The
answer:
With all this manure, there must be a pony in here somewhere.
Sorry, Paul. Only manure from the 'commander'. No pony nor hope of one
in the future.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >> >> >> That's what I thought about headphone outlets.
> >
> >> >> >What is a "headphone outlet"? Congrats on not Krooglishing, BTW.
> >
> >> >> Is this another trick question, George? I'm still getting over the
> >> >> last one.
> >
> >> >Thanks for admitting you murdered your mum.
> >
> >> Did I? I wondered why I hadn't seen her about lately.
> >
> >You just fell into my trap. We now know your euphemism "headphone
> >outlet" really means "guillotine basket".
>
> Why is that I only ever doubt my sanity after reading your posts,
> George?
Really. Is it just a coincidence that your rate of incidental
Krooglishing also drops when you converse with me?
paul packer
I'm the eternal optimist, Peter.
And I've always wanted a pony. Even one with feces all over it.
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
It's fear of compulsive pedantry.
(That's pedantry with one "t").
Oh, just checking my spelling (out of fear of compulsive pedantry) and
came across this:
"Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental
disorders. In particular those with Asperger Syndrome, or Higher
Functioning Autism, often have behavior characterized by pedantic
speech.[1] Those with Asperger's tend to obsess over the minutiae of
subjects, and are prone to giving long detailed expositions, and the
related corrections, and may gravitate to careers in academia or
science where such obsessive attention to detail is often rewarded."
Hmmmm.......
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> > Is it just a coincidence that your rate of incidental
> > Krooglishing also drops when you converse with me?
> It's fear of compulsive pedantry.
> (That's pedantry with one "t").
You still haven't figured that joke out, and it's been more than a week.
> "Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental
> disorders. In particular those with Asperger Syndrome,
You left out the comma after "particular". Tsk, tsk.
(BTW, be careful when you feed Worthless Wiecky. He's been known to
bite.)
dizzy
>At least if he HP outlet is driven by the output stage you're
>basically getting what the reviewers, and maybe your mates, were
>raving about.
I only quoted the last of many ridiculously wrong things that you
wrote. Give it up, man.
ScottW
> Which is another reason why dedicated HP amps within amps
> are a bad idea (apart also from adding to the cost for no good
> reason).
Talk about adding cost for no good reason....that would be using a
power amp to drive headphones.
ScottW
Trevor Wilson
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:51:45 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>And I will ask the question on everyone's lips:
>
> Really? Our little discussion is that interesting?
**Perhaps. At least one other person appears to be reading.
>
>> What are your technical
>>qualifications and your experience, which allow to you determine such a
>>thing (bearing in mind that, without examining the schematic, you will
>>have
>>real difficulty in knowing if an amp is fitted with a dedicated headphone
>>amp)?
>
> That's exactly what I'm arguing: that in the majority of cases one
> doesn't need an electronics degree but simply good eyesight to see how
> the headphone outlet is driven. There are of course exceptions. For
> instance yesterday I took delivery of a Denon PMA 250III, took a look
> inside and lo, not for the first time I wasn't able to determine how
> the HP outlet was being driven; for that, yes, I would have needed to
> be able to read a schematic.
**BINGO! Unless you are absolutely certain, you can't offer advice.
Read my posts again and reassure
> yourself that I'm claiming nothing but decent eyesight and common
> sense. Do you see me talking gobbledegook about ohms, watts and volts?
> I think not.
**Ohms, Volts and Watts are not gobbdegook.
>
>>>>>>You failed to comment. I can only draw the conclusion that you finally
>>>>>>agree
>>>>>>with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I failed to comment for the reason stated above, that I can only argue
>>>>> the same subject till I'm blue in the face, after which I usually
>>>>> collapse and have to be revived.
>>>>
>>>>**There is an alternative - You are wrong but prefer not to acknowledge
>>>>it.
>>>
>>> About what? I claimed that most headphone outlets, at least in budget
>>> amps,are driven from the output stage through resistors. Quote as many
>>> exceptions as you like, to me they only prove the rule.
>>
>>**LOL! All the amps I listed are budget amps. And, in one sense I agree
>>with
>>you: MOST amps are not fitted with dedicated headphone amplifiers. That,
>>notwithstanding, does not mean that a very large number are so fitted.
>
> Damn, Trevor, I read that last sentence ten times and still couldn't
> get it. Must be me.
**Perhaps my writing is not as good as my technicianing. Here's a short
translation of the entire paragraph:
* All the amps I listed are budget amps.
* Most amplifiers are not fitted with dedicated headphone amplifiers.
* MANY amplifiers (though, not a majority) are fitted with headphone
amplifiers. (My quick examination revealed around 30%)
>
>>>>A not altogether surprising fact, given the breadth and depth of your
>>>>technical abilities and qualifications.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you'd like to quote from those posts where I claimed technical
>>> qualifications and abilities.
>>
>>**That is precisely the point. You continue to argue with me, from a point
>>of weakness. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would do so.
>>The appropriate response from you, should be (to paraphrase): "Oh, is that
>>right, Trevor? Thanks for the information. I shall try not to mislead
>>people
>>with my clear lack of technical abilities any more."
>
> Mislead people?
**Yes. Here are your words (based on YOUR experience using headphones, NOT
speakers):
"Not necessarily an improvement, Trevor. I have a Yamaha RX-485
receiver and it sounds brilliant--better than the several budget
Rotels I've had."
My complaint is that you need to inform people that YOUR judgement of an
amplifier is based on headphone listening only. It is not the way most
people use an amplifier.
> Which people are those?
**The original poster, for one.
You're the only person I've
> ever discussed it with.
**Not really. Since this is a public forum, many people may be reading.
>
>>Unlike you, I KNOW what I am talking about. I am not stupid enough to
>>claim
>>that by cursorily examining an amplifier, that I can tell if it uses a
>>headphone amplifier or not. I know that it often takes much more.
>>Including
>>an examination of the schematic.
>
> As above. I've already acknowledged that, indeed never denied it--in
> some cases. I see that you write "I know that it often takes much
> more". Are you thus acknowledging with your "often" that it sometimes
> doesn't?
**Indeed. SOMETIMES. Modern surround sound receivers are so complex, that it
is virtually impossible to determine how the headphones are driven, without
a schematic. And I promise you, even reading that is a major PITA. Often the
headphone socket (and associated resistors) will be on one page and the
headphone amplifier will be on another page. Sometimes, the signal will be
routed through a (say) 40 way connector and tracing the wiring can be quite
difficult, even for someone well versed in such things.
>
>> Additionally and more importantly, I know
>>that the sound of an amplifier, when operating through headphones, may be
>>fundamentally different to that same amp when operating with headphones.
>
> I'm assuming that last "headphones" should be "speakers". Or am I
> missing something?
**Thanks for spotting my typo.
>
> IAC, here's a thought not directly related to our discussion. I
> suggest that using a separate HP amp is a form of fraud. When someone
> buys an amp they do so on the basis of reviews, what they heard
> through speakers in the shop, the amp's reputation. All of which is
> based on what the amp sounds like through the speaker outlets. The HP
> user has a right to expect the same sound through the HP outlet as the
> speaker user gets, or alternatively, the guy using speakers has the
> right to expect the same sound through the HP outlet, not the sounds
> of some cheap IC.
**Your logic is wrong. Here's why:
* Headphones are like speakers. They should be driven from a significantly
lower impedance source than the headphone impedance.
* ALL headphone outputs which are derived from power amp outputs are sourced
via relatively high value resistors.
* MOST budget amplifiers, which employ dedicated headphone amplification,
also source the signal through relatively high value resistors.
* Decent quality headphone amplifiers source the outputs through low value
resistance.
* Crappy quality headphone amplifiers (which may include tube driven ones)
source their outputs through high value resistors.
>
>>also know several other things:
>>* I've listened to and tested several VERY good headphone amplifiers,
>>through Senn 580s.
>
> The Senn 580s are an acquired taste I never acquired, but never mind.
**They were my reference.
>
>>* I know that some dedicated headphone amps within amplifiers sound very
>>good and some sound very bad. An examination of the schematic usually
>>reveals the reasons why.
>
> Which doesn't much help those of us without, or unable to interpret,
> schematics.
**Listening to a wide range of technically proficient products is a good
start. I have suggested at least one to you.
Which is another reason why dedicated HP amps within amps
> are a bad idea (apart also from adding to the cost for no good
> reason).
**Again, not necessarily.
While some amps get reviewed, the sound of the amp through
> HPs is never reviewed, so if separate HP amps are used, even buying a
> highly reviewed amp gives no guarantee of satisfaction for HP users.
> At least if he HP outlet is driven by the output stage you're
> basically getting what the reviewers, and maybe your mates, were
> raving about.
**No. You've missed the point. Again.
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> > Is it just a coincidence that your rate of incidental
>> > Krooglishing also drops when you converse with me?
>
>> It's fear of compulsive pedantry.
>> (That's pedantry with one "t").
>
>You still haven't figured that joke out, and it's been more than a week.
Please explain.
>> "Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental
>> disorders. In particular those with Asperger Syndrome,
>
>You left out the comma after "particular". Tsk, tsk.
Not me--that was a cut and paste. In any case I don't agree there
should be one, unless of course one is being pedantic.
Dug through any minutiae lately, George? Found any ponies? (smirk)
>(BTW, be careful when you feed Worthless Wiecky. He's been known to
>bite.)
I like Peter. He's funny.
paul packer
wrote:
Not if the power amp is already there to drive speakers.
paul packer
> Give it up, man.
I gave it up and Trevor wanted to know why. :-)
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >> > Is it just a coincidence that your rate of incidental
> >> > Krooglishing also drops when you converse with me?
> >> It's fear of compulsive pedantry.
> >> (That's pedantry with one "t").
> >You still haven't figured that joke out, and it's been more than a week.
> Please explain.
<sigh>
I hate explaining jokes....
You made a joke about "partanoia". Extra "t". Get it now?
> >> "Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental
> >> disorders. In particular those with Asperger Syndrome,
> >You left out the comma after "particular". Tsk, tsk.
> Not me--that was a cut and paste. In any case I don't agree there
> should be one, unless of course one is being pedantic.
You don't have to agree -- it's still an unconditional absolute. Leaving
out the comma is dead wrong.
> Dug through any minutiae lately, George? Found any ponies? (smirk)
Nope. I have my hands full keeping down the 'borg infestation on RAO.
> >(BTW, be careful when you feed Worthless Wiecky. He's been known to
> >bite.)
> I like Peter. He's funny.
Hoo-boy.....
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >> > Is it just a coincidence that your rate of incidental
>> >> > Krooglishing also drops when you converse with me?
>
>> >> It's fear of compulsive pedantry.
>> >> (That's pedantry with one "t").
>
>> >You still haven't figured that joke out, and it's been more than a week.
>
>> Please explain.
>
><sigh>
>I hate explaining jokes....
That's obvious.
>You made a joke about "partanoia". Extra "t". Get it now?
God, George, that's terribly obscure, and not exactly knee-slapping.
Don't you ever make jokes others can share?
>> >> "Pedantry can also be an indication of certain developmental
>> >> disorders. In particular those with Asperger Syndrome,
>
>> >You left out the comma after "particular". Tsk, tsk.
>
>> Not me--that was a cut and paste. In any case I don't agree there
>> should be one, unless of course one is being pedantic.
>
>You don't have to agree -- it's still an unconditional absolute. Leaving
>out the comma is dead wrong.
But it still reads well, and no one but you would ever notice. IAC if
you're going to have unconditional absolutes in language, it should be
to control much more shocking errors than that.
>> Dug through any minutiae lately, George? Found any ponies? (smirk)
>
>Nope. I have my hands full keeping down the 'borg infestation on RAO.
Good joke though, eh? Minutiae--manure. Better than yours.
>> >(BTW, be careful when you feed Worthless Wiecky. He's been known to
>> >bite.)
>
>> I like Peter. He's funny.
>
>Hoo-boy.....
If I feed him only the best hay I should be safe.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >I hate explaining jokes....
> That's obvious.
Is it? How rude of you to snot like that.
> >You made a joke about "partanoia". Extra "t". Get it now?
> God, George, that's terribly obscure,
I don't think it's obscure. It followed right on the heels of your
"partanoia" crack.
> and not exactly knee-slapping.
IMO, they were both equally limp. You're no more exempt from mockery
than anybody else on RAO.
> Don't you ever make jokes others can share?
I freely admit I don't play to the dodderers' gallery.
> >You don't have to agree -- it's still an unconditional absolute. Leaving
> >out the comma is dead wrong.
> But it still reads well, and no one but you would ever notice.
... said the uneducated boor.
> IAC
What does that stand for?
> if you're going to have unconditional absolutes in language, it should be
> to control much more shocking errors than that.
Oh no, here we go again.
See, paul, you started this entire exchange by jumping on Ludo's
"partanoia" typo. Now you've come full circle by ignoring your own petty
quibble joke in order to complain about my factual observation that the
quoted text contained an absolute error.
It doesn't matter if only one in a hundred people know it's wrong. Wrong
is wrong. The question isn't whether it "reads well". I agree that the
error is so minor that it doesn't interfere with comprehension for most
readers. Nonetheless, it's still wrong. The standard of right and wrong
in composition is not whether it "reads well". In fact, I disagree that
it "reads well". I'd say it reads acceptably.
Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean there is no
knowledge beyond your ken. In this case, you don't know what you're
talking about. I don't say that to be insulting. so please don't take it
that way. The *only* reason I pointed out the error in your quoted text
is because *you* made an issue of a very minor error at the top of this
exchange.
> >> Dug through any minutiae lately, George? Found any ponies? (smirk)
> >Nope. I have my hands full keeping down the 'borg infestation on RAO.
> Good joke though, eh? Minutiae--manure. Better than yours.
Sorry, I don't see the connection. Minutiae are tiny details, and manure
is the main dinner course chez Krooger. Where did manure come in,
anyway? If you want plaudits, you'd better explain your "joke". (I also
didn't get the reference to ponies, so feel free to elaborate on that
one also.)
> >> >(BTW, be careful when you feed Worthless Wiecky. He's been known to
> >> >bite.)
> >> I like Peter. He's funny.
> >Hoo-boy.....
> If I feed him only the best hay I should be safe.
You've been warned.
Peter Wieck
Paul:
Do you understand the analogy of mud-wrestling with pigs (and I
apologize to the porcine species in advance)? It accomplishes nothing
and the pigs enjoy it. The commander hasn't a scintilla of the utility
of a pig, but is exclusively at home in the mud. The only time it gets
any attention is when it convinces someone to wrestle with it. In its
own way, it is just like the Morein coterie and all the various
parasites around it (comes to it, the commander is one of those
parasites)... best ignored.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
So why do you bother 2 respond?
Into the 2pid bin with you.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Shhhh! said to Worthless Wiecky:
> > > >(BTW, be careful when you feed Worthless Wiecky. He's been known to
> > > >bite.)
> > > I like Peter. He's funny.
> > Do you understand the analogy of mud-wrestling with pigs (and I
> > apologize to the porcine species in advance)?
duh-Mikey called me a pig too. Do you eat also bugs, Worthless?
> > The commander hasn't a scintilla of the utility
I don't think you meant "scintilla". You should have said "trace" or
"smidgen". Nerds like you are notoriously bad with language.
> > it is just like the Morein coterie and all the various
> > parasites around it
You think Morein has a "coterie"? Paranoid much? ;-)
> So why do you bother 2 respond?
> Into the 2pid bin with you.
Worthless is a major Kroopologist. He's only permitted to play on Usenet
because Andre Jute is so forgiving.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
net> wrote:
> Worthless is a major Kroopologist. He's only permitted to play on Usenet
> because Andre Jute is so forgiving.
He strikes me as somewhat senile.
How old is he?
Jenn
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
Speaking of Kroopolgists, Javert has been leaving me alone, and I
happily return the favor. Perhaps Shhhh and Scott can learn to do the
same.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> Speaking of Kroopolgists, Javert has been leaving me alone, and I
> happily return the favor. Perhaps Shhhh and Scott can learn to do the
> same.
Sorry, Jenn.
Not gonna happen. 2pid begs 2 get spanked. Being of a christian mind,
I am duty-bound to oblige.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > Worthless is a major Kroopologist. He's only permitted to play on Usenet
> > because Andre Jute is so forgiving.
> Speaking of Kroopolgists, Javert has been leaving me alone, and I
> happily return the favor. Perhaps Shhhh and Scott can learn to do the
> same.
Who is this Javert -- a modern-day international man of mystery?
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > Worthless is a major Kroopologist. He's only permitted to play on Usenet
> > because Andre Jute is so forgiving.
> He strikes me as somewhat senile.
> How old is he?
In lizard years or people years?
Jenn
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> > > Worthless is a major Kroopologist. He's only permitted to play on Usenet
> > > because Andre Jute is so forgiving.
>
> > Speaking of Kroopolgists, Javert has been leaving me alone, and I
> > happily return the favor. Perhaps Shhhh and Scott can learn to do the
> > same.
>
> Who is this Javert -- a modern-day international man of mystery?
It's a literary allusion.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > > > Worthless is a major Kroopologist. He's only permitted to play on Usenet
> > > > because Andre Jute is so forgiving.
> > > Speaking of Kroopolgists, Javert has been leaving me alone, and I
> > > happily return the favor. Perhaps Shhhh and Scott can learn to do the
> > > same.
> > Who is this Javert -- a modern-day international man of mystery?
> It's a literary allusion.
I suspected that, but I don't see the connection. Are you alluding to
Krooger's affinity for sewers?
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
>> Don't you ever make jokes others can share?
>
>I freely admit I don't play to the dodderers' gallery.
In that case, please do so in future.
>> >You don't have to agree -- it's still an unconditional absolute. Leaving
>> >out the comma is dead wrong.
>
>> But it still reads well, and no one but you would ever notice.
>
>... said the uneducated boor.
Oh, very snotty indeed, George.
>> IAC
>
>What does that stand for?
"In any case", but I agree the "AC" shouldn't be capitalized. Another
shocking error from this end.
>> if you're going to have unconditional absolutes in language, it should be
>> to control much more shocking errors than that.
>
>Oh no, here we go again.
>
>See, paul, you started this entire exchange by jumping on Ludo's
>"partanoia" typo.
"Jumping on"? No, George I used it to have a bit of fun with Ludo.
"Jumping on" suggests some sort of mild attack--never the case with me
and Ludo.
> Now you've come full circle by ignoring your own petty
>quibble joke in order to complain about my factual observation that the
>quoted text contained an absolute error.
>
>It doesn't matter if only one in a hundred people know it's wrong. Wrong
>is wrong.
Hmmm..this sentence perhaps says more than is intended. That said, I
have a similar dislike of sloppiness in language; it just doesn't
extend to those heights, or depths. In a world where "How are yous
all?" goes by the board, I prefer not to nit-pick to the enth degree.
That Wika entry was clearly written by someone of intelligence with a
high standard of literacy, and they didn't pick it up. I say it's
nit-picking.
> The question isn't whether it "reads well". I agree that the
>error is so minor that it doesn't interfere with comprehension for most
>readers. Nonetheless, it's still wrong. The standard of right and wrong
>in composition is not whether it "reads well". In fact, I disagree that
>it "reads well". I'd say it reads acceptably.
Yet you haven't accepted it.
I say it depends on the kind of writing. In an academic paper, say,
one needs to be absolutely correct; in a novel the requirement is less
severe. For instance, it used to be anathema to end a sentence with a
preposition. Yet in many quite beautifully written novels today, not
only is it done, but not to do it would render the prose stiff and
prissy. In that case effect is far more important than literal, or
literary, correctness. If one were to apply your absolute rule of
"wrong or not wrong", every sentence would have to re-written and the
novel would be ruined. I suggest a little more latitude.
>Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean there is no
>knowledge beyond your ken. In this case, you don't know what you're
>talking about. I don't say that to be insulting. so please don't take it
>that way. The *only* reason I pointed out the error in your quoted text
>is because *you* made an issue of a very minor error at the top of this
>exchange.
Not "an issue". A point of mild amusement,.
>> >> Dug through any minutiae lately, George? Found any ponies? (smirk)
>
>> >Nope. I have my hands full keeping down the 'borg infestation on RAO.
>
>> Good joke though, eh? Minutiae--manure. Better than yours.
>
>Sorry, I don't see the connection. Minutiae are tiny details, and manure
>is the main dinner course chez Krooger. Where did manure come in,
>anyway? If you want plaudits, you'd better explain your "joke". (I also
>didn't get the reference to ponies, so feel free to elaborate on that
>one also.)
Read above Peter's post about digging in manure for ponies. Without
that it makes no sense.
Peter Wieck
net> wrote:
> I don't think you meant "scintilla". You should have said "trace" or
> "smidgen". Nerds like you are notoriously bad with language.
Main Entry: scin·til·la
Pronunciation: sin-'ti-l&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin
: SPARK, TRACE <not a scintilla of doubt>
Not only are you boring, but also particularly dense and inept.
Anything positive in you would be a 'spark'. As there is none and
nothing, not a scintilla. Get it?
Bad with language. Let me know when you get a clue as you may discern
obvious error but are entirely out of your league when it comes to
actual usage.
As sad a character as you are puts me in mind of a rather bad Seinfeld
episode.... where the crew was discussing whether they were 'masters
of their own domain'. Would that you were as if so, you would entirely
disappear here. Now, let's also make one more thing clear. I
specifically did not call you a pig. I likened your behavior to that
of a pig, but apologize to the species by naming you in the same
paragraph as they. You do not begin to achieve the status of 'pig'.
Main Entry: co·te·rie
Pronunciation: 'kO-t&-(")rE, "kO-t&-'
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Middle French, tenants, from Old French cotier
cotter, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English cot hut
: an intimate and often exclusive group of persons with a unifying
common interest or purpose
That would include Morein, whatever phantoms hover about him, and
whatever additional phantasms and chimera hover about that group.
Pretentious pre-pubescent little twits are particularly inept when it
comes to actual usage, much less 'language'.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Jenn
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> > > > > Worthless is a major Kroopologist. He's only permitted to play on
> > > > > Usenet
> > > > > because Andre Jute is so forgiving.
>
> > > > Speaking of Kroopolgists, Javert has been leaving me alone, and I
> > > > happily return the favor. Perhaps Shhhh and Scott can learn to do the
> > > > same.
>
> > > Who is this Javert -- a modern-day international man of mystery?
>
> > It's a literary allusion.
>
> I suspected that, but I don't see the connection. Are you alluding to
> Krooger's affinity for sewers?
No, but for me to go further wouldn't be fair.
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
>
>
>Jenn said:
>
>> > Worthless is a major Kroopologist. He's only permitted to play on Usenet
>> > because Andre Jute is so forgiving.
>
>> Speaking of Kroopolgists, Javert has been leaving me alone, and I
>> happily return the favor. Perhaps Shhhh and Scott can learn to do the
>> same.
>
>Who is this Javert -- a modern-day international man of mystery?
Les Miserables. In other words, nemesis.
Mark D
you? Mark
paul packer
>On Mar 31, 6:41 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
>net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you meant "scintilla". You should have said "trace" or
>> "smidgen". Nerds like you are notoriously bad with language.
>
>Main Entry: scin=B7til=B7la
>Pronunciation: sin-'ti-l&
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Latin
>: SPARK, TRACE <not a scintilla of doubt>
>
>Not only are you boring, but also particularly dense and inept.
>Anything positive in you would be a 'spark'. As there is none and
>nothing, not a scintilla. Get it?
>
>Bad with language. Let me know when you get a clue as you may discern
>obvious error but are entirely out of your league when it comes to
>actual usage.
>
>As sad a character as you are puts me in mind of a rather bad Seinfeld
>episode.... where the crew was discussing whether they were 'masters
>of their own domain'. Would that you were as if so, you would entirely
>disappear here. Now, let's also make one more thing clear. I
>specifically did not call you a pig. I likened your behavior to that
>of a pig, but apologize to the species by naming you in the same
>paragraph as they. You do not begin to achieve the status of 'pig'.
>
>Main Entry: co=B7te=B7rie
>Pronunciation: 'kO-t&-(")rE, "kO-t&-'
>Function: noun
>Etymology: French, from Middle French, tenants, from Old French cotier
>cotter, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English cot hut
>: an intimate and often exclusive group of persons with a unifying
>common interest or purpose
>
>That would include Morein, whatever phantoms hover about him, and
>whatever additional phantasms and chimera hover about that group.
>
>Pretentious pre-pubescent little twits are particularly inept when it
>comes to actual usage, much less 'language'.
>
>Peter Wieck
>Wyncote, PA
I'd have thought language was the one area where George wasn't
suspectible to attack. Several others, yes, but not language.
Let me quote your sentence:
>Would that you were as if so, you would entirely disappear here
and suggest that the comma after 'so' would be better placed after
'were'. Would you agree?
Peter Wieck
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. Would that you were as if so... AKA: it is greatly wished to be so
because.
The impact would be considerably diluted by the comma after were. One
does not wish to give the reader/listener a chance to think. Of
course, in the commander's case thougth is not possible. Put another
way, the "set-up" should be seamless.
Then. If there were no comma after so, the pause-before-the-kill which
also adds to the impact would be further diluted.
Finally. Two commas would be awkward.
If one wishes to determine the careful use of commas, see them as a
very short pause or breath during a sentence. Play in your mind it as
you would say it. Then place the commas for maximum impact. Those who
place commas by rote-and-rule generally are very poor writers. They
may be technically correct under some conditions but what they write
will be unmemorable and without taste or substance. Contrast Mark
Twain to your Windows Vista manual.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said to Worthless Wiecky:
> Let me quote your sentence:
>
> >Would that you were as if so, you would entirely disappear here
>
> and suggest that the comma after 'so' would be better placed after
> 'were'. Would you agree?
You're inches away from getting bitten.
paul packer
@ comcast . net> wrote:
>
>
>paul packer said to Worthless Wiecky:
>
>> Let me quote your sentence:
>>
>> >Would that you were as if so, you would entirely disappear here
>>
>> and suggest that the comma after 'so' would be better placed after
>> 'were'. Would you agree?
>
>You're inches away from getting bitten.
That was the purpose, to test your warning. However, I seem to have
survived this time--just.
James Bond has nothing on me for fearless derring do. :-)
elm...@shaw.ca
In a fit of absentmindedness I stumbled on this thread- a homely
display of nothing very much.
Paul you do have sense of humour. What are you doing here?
Regards Ludovic M.
Peter Wieck
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't get your panties in a wad. The "commander" is in one of its
active stages based only on the phases of the moon. It and the OP are
two peas-in-a-pod, almost entirely dedicated to trollisms. The
significant difference is that it is a dubious speculation to consider
if the commander actually owns a tube (valve)... much less one-or-more
in active service. Bratlet likely has actually once owned a tube
(valve) or so... But has equally likely never actually listened to
same.
One may also observe its increasing stridence and desperation based on
the recent scarcity of its motivating essence. Sock-puppets do not do
well when their manipulating pseudopod is absent, moribund or
paralyzed... One hopes either of the latter two, of course and that it
is a permanent condition.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
paul packer
wrote:
They're often the best kind.
>Paul you do have sense of humour. What are you doing here?
>Regards Ludovic M.
Er....learning better English?
Laughing at the others?
No. I'll think of a reason. :-)
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >Paul you do have sense of humour. What are you doing here?
> >Regards Ludovic M.
> Er....learning better English?
> Laughing at the others?
> No. I'll think of a reason. :-)
Not to worry, I have your answer: To snag some juice flies.
Clyde Slick
Peter Wieck a scris:
>
> Paul:
>
> Do you understand the analogy of mud-wrestling with pigs (and I
> apologize to the porcine species in advance)? It accomplishes nothing
> and the pigs enjoy it. The commander hasn't a scintilla of the utility
> of a pig, but is exclusively at home in the mud. The only time it gets
> any attention is when it convinces someone to wrestle with it. In its
> own way, it is just like the Morein coterie and all the various
> parasites around it (comes to it, the commander is one of those
> parasites)... best ignored.
>
Here's a handywipe for you.
Clyde Slick
Peter Wieck a scris:
You're quite a little dandy.
I hope I haven't ruffled your well folded hanky.
Soundhaspriority
1175509847.6...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> Peter Wieck a scris:
>> On Mar 31, 6:41 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
>> net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think you meant "scintilla". You should have said "trace" or
>>> "smidgen". Nerds like you are notoriously bad with language.
>>
>> Main Entry: scin暗il損a
>> Pronunciation: sin-'ti-l&
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: Latin
>> : SPARK, TRACE <not a scintilla of doubt>
>>
>> Not only are you boring, but also particularly dense and inept.
>> Anything positive in you would be a 'spark'. As there is none and
>> nothing, not a scintilla. Get it?
>>
>> Bad with language. Let me know when you get a clue as you may discern
>> obvious error but are entirely out of your league when it comes to
>> actual usage.
>>
>> As sad a character as you are puts me in mind of a rather bad Seinfeld
>> episode.... where the crew was discussing whether they were 'masters
>> of their own domain'. Would that you were as if so, you would entirely
>> disappear here. Now, let's also make one more thing clear. I
>> specifically did not call you a pig. I likened your behavior to that
>> of a pig, but apologize to the species by naming you in the same
>> paragraph as they. You do not begin to achieve the status of 'pig'.
>>
>> Main Entry: co暗e斟ie
>> Pronunciation: 'kO-t&-(")rE, "kO-t&-'
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: French, from Middle French, tenants, from Old French cotier
>> cotter, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English cot hut
>> : an intimate and often exclusive group of persons with a unifying
>> common interest or purpose
>>
>> That would include Morein, whatever phantoms hover about him, and
>> whatever additional phantasms and chimera hover about that group.
>>
>> Pretentious pre-pubescent little twits are particularly inept when it
>> comes to actual usage, much less 'language'.
>>
>> Peter Wieck
>> Wyncote, PA
>
> You're quite a little dandy.
> I hope I haven't ruffled your well folded hanky.
I've got the name and phone number of Peter's boss at the real estate
leasing company. I found in my discussions with him that Peter has all the
traits stereotypical of the "stuffed shirt" personality disorder.
He's easy to get back into line, with the sharp rap of a 2x4 to his boss'
head.
Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Robert said:
> I found in my discussions with him that Peter has all the
> traits stereotypical of the "stuffed shirt" personality disorder.
Being bossy and overbearing would clash rather severely with a
salesman's role. I've met that type on used car lots, but could a
realtor afford to drive away customers because of his warped
personality?
Soundhaspriority
"George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
news:0qb2131ooffljrqnb...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Robert said:
>
>> I found in my discussions with him that Peter has all the
>> traits stereotypical of the "stuffed shirt" personality disorder.
>
> Being bossy and overbearing would clash rather severely with a
> salesman's role. I've met that type on used car lots, but could a
> realtor afford to drive away customers because of his warped
> personality?
>
post. The telltale is the flaunting demeanor.
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Robert said:
> > Being bossy and overbearing would clash rather severely with a
> > salesman's role. I've met that type on used car lots, but could a
> > realtor afford to drive away customers because of his warped
> > personality?
> Now wait a minute, George. I don't want to embarass you, but that's a Bwian
> post. The telltale is the flaunting demeanor.
Oops! My bad. Forgot to check the header.
Soundhaspriority
<cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
0qb2131ooffljrqnb...@4ax.com
>
> Robert said:
>
>> I found in my discussions with him that Peter has all the
>> traits stereotypical of the "stuffed shirt" personality disorder.
>
> Being bossy and overbearing would clash rather severely with a
> salesman's role. I've met that type on used car lots, but could a
> realtor afford to drive away customers because of his warped
> personality?
Dance, you fucking monkey. Dance!
Arny Krueger
Soundhaspriority
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Bwian said:
> Dance, you fucking monkey.
Arnii Krooborg does not approve of public swearing, Bwian.
Soundhaspriority
> Peter Wieck a scris:
>> On Mar 31, 6:41 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
>> net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think you meant "scintilla". You should have said "trace" or
>>> "smidgen". Nerds like you are notoriously bad with language.
>>
>> Main Entry: scin�til�la
>> Pronunciation: sin-'ti-l&
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: Latin
>> : SPARK, TRACE <not a scintilla of doubt>
>>
>> Not only are you boring, but also particularly dense and inept.
>> Anything positive in you would be a 'spark'. As there is none and
>> nothing, not a scintilla. Get it?
>>
>> Bad with language. Let me know when you get a clue as you may discern
>> obvious error but are entirely out of your league when it comes to
>> actual usage.
>>
>> As sad a character as you are puts me in mind of a rather bad Seinfeld
>> episode.... where the crew was discussing whether they were 'masters
>> of their own domain'. Would that you were as if so, you would entirely
>> disappear here. Now, let's also make one more thing clear. I
>> specifically did not call you a pig. I likened your behavior to that
>> of a pig, but apologize to the species by naming you in the same
>> paragraph as they. You do not begin to achieve the status of 'pig'.
>>
>> Main Entry: co�te�rie
>> Pronunciation: 'kO-t&-(")rE, "kO-t&-'
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: French, from Middle French, tenants, from Old French cotier
>> cotter, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English cot hut
>> : an intimate and often exclusive group of persons with a unifying
>> common interest or purpose
>>
>> That would include Morein, whatever phantoms hover about him, and
>> whatever additional phantasms and chimera hover about that group.
>>
>> Pretentious pre-pubescent little twits are particularly inept when it
>> comes to actual usage, much less 'language'.
>>
>> Peter Wieck
>> Wyncote, PA
>
> You're quite a little dandy.
> I hope I haven't ruffled your well folded hanky.
I've got the name and phone number of Peter's boss at the real estate
leasing company. I found in my discussions with him that Peter has all the
traits stereotypical of the "stuffed shirt" personality disorder.
He's easy to get back into line, with the sharp rap of a 2x4 to his boss'
head.
Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894