VAF DC-X Gen IV improvements ?
Adam. Seychell
I am looking at buying some speakers in $1k~$2k range and would like to
here some specific advice on the new DC-X's from VAF. Like 94% of the
people in Australia I don't live in Adelaide and unfortunately cannot
listen to a pair of these first hand. So I need to collect all the info
I can get to make an evaluation and therefore have the confidence
forking my money. I have read the article on the Gen IV at VAF's
website, and I see they have totally redesigned the speaker, by
different drivers, crossover, and cabinet. Listening to peoples
responses to the the older (Gen III) DC-X's I get the impression they
were be a bit bright or harsh in the midrange to some people. I'm trying
to figure if this "flaw" is evident on the published frequency response
curves;
http://www.vaf.com.au/catalog/products/dcx_spec.htm
Does the 1/3 octave smoothing applied to the graph actually mask the
measured data from showing the listeners "brightness" sound in the
midrange ? All I can see is about +2dB rise above 4kHz. Could there be
hump in off axis midrange frequency response, with which data is not
published ? I do notice a doubling of speaker impedance at 5kHz, but
this should have negligible effect when driven by a low impedance
produced from any decent amplifier.
Comparing the frequency response between the Gen III and Gen IV. The
responses for the Gen IV is unsmoothed and it also appears flatter,
within +-2dB 1..20kHz (Figure 1a of DC-X Gen IV Article).
As Philip Vafiadis adds to the last paragraph of the DC-X Gen IV
Article, "...and the undeniable conclusion is that if something can be
heard that does not show in the measurements then the wrong thing is
being measured."
So based in this notion can one assume that the new DC-X will perform
equal to say the I-93 in accuracy since both specifications show what
looks to me very flat frequency response curves ? (Ignoring low end and
power handing which is obviously lacking in a physically smaller speaker
with less drivers)
best regards,
Adam
Kai Howells
are in different ballparks... and very different price-points.
Having said that, I bought a pair of Gen IV DC-7 (and listened to the
DC-X) and found them to both be very good speakers.
If the DC-X pass the WAF test, then they would be a fine pair of
speakers to use, personally for spousal and budgetry constraints, I
went with the 7's and I'm very happy with them.
My one and only negative about the DC-7 is the directionality of the
treble - it involved a fair bit of tweaking their position to get the
sound right, but once I did the stereo imaging is unparalled in _any_
speaker I listened to in their price range. The DC-X will go a way to
solve this problem by using two tweeters, both firing off-axis to
spread the treble over a larger horizontal range...
I find the DC speakers to be very well balanced, extremely clean and
clear and with smooth bass that's not at all over-emphasised.
It is worth taking note that if you buy your speakers from VAF unheard,
there is a 100% money-back guarantee - what better way to audition them
than in your own loungeroom =)
Cheers,
Kai
muck...@yahoo.com.au
> Listening to peoples
> responses to the the older (Gen III) DC-X's I get the impression they
> were be a bit bright or harsh in the midrange to some people. I'm
trying
> to figure if this "flaw" is evident on the published frequency
response
> curves;
> http://www.vaf.com.au/catalog/products/dcx_spec.htm
>
> Does the 1/3 octave smoothing applied to the graph actually mask the
> measured data from showing the listeners "brightness" sound in the
> midrange ?
>
> As Philip Vafiadis adds to the last paragraph of the DC-X Gen IV
> Article, "...and the undeniable conclusion is that if something can
be
> heard that does not show in the measurements then the wrong thing is
> being measured."
I've got the Gen III DC-Xs; haven't heard the new ones.
IMHO, "bright" is the wrong description, because it suggests a
frequency hump, as you indicate. "Harsh" is a better description, and
is a predictable result of trying to get an 8" driver to reproduce 8
kHz, no matter how well it has been physically tweaked. This quality
may not show up all that well in conventional measurements, as you have
a woofer starting to go ragged but also being summed with the tweeter
output. Another aspect is that the frequency response neglects the
time-domain behaviour.
Some folks seem to think the limitations show up in vocals, which I
think misses the mark a little. The limitations occur higher than that
(unless we are talking concert sopranos :-), and are consequently more
tolerable. Frankly, with amplified instruments, you might never tell
the difference. In addition to all that, these speakers are pretty damn
revealing for their price, and given the sh*tawful harshness of many
recordings, the question has to be asked whether some of these
criticisms say more about the recording than the reproduction.
Adam. Seychell
Ok, so "harsh" may be a word to describe distortion, and would explain
why not indicated in the frequency responses. As you say, driving a 8"
driver to 8kHz does not help at all. The Gen IV DC-X's have more
conventional crossover circuit so I suspect the crossover frequency is
set lower and so the midrange distortion will be reduced in the new
DC-Xs. In addition, VAF also publish distortion figures for the Gen IV
(although no mention at what power level) so hopefully this demonstrates
no obvious "harshness".
Public Image Ltd
> Ok, so "harsh" may be a word to describe distortion, and would
explain
> why not indicated in the frequency responses. As you say, driving a
8"
> driver to 8kHz does not help at all. The Gen IV DC-X's have more
> conventional crossover circuit so I suspect the crossover frequency
is
> set lower and so the midrange distortion will be reduced in the new
> DC-Xs. In addition, VAF also publish distortion figures for the Gen
IV
> (although no mention at what power level) so hopefully this
demonstrates
> no obvious "harshness".
I'm not even sure I like "harsh". Some people are simply sensitive to
any mids that are not completely smooth, but that's hard to achieve
with an MTM design. I don't think the Gen IIIs are any worse than
anything else comparable, in this regard. The way around this problem
is usually to either foresake bass extension and go with something
smaller (possibly justifying this decision by claiming that one doesn't
listen to rock :-), or fork out the dosh for floorstanders with
dedicated mids. It may well be that the Gen IVs provide another
alternative, but I haven't heard them and can't say.
What I can say is that when I play test tones through the Gen IIIs, I
can't hear any obvious frequency humps. In contrast, I can hear a very
audible hump around 2-3 kHz in my phones - Alessandro Music Series
Ones. For this reason, I think all the people who have set out on the
quest to tame the Gen III's tweeter may have been chasing the wrong
thing. It could instead have something to do with time-smearing of
mid-range transients. Another test I have been meaning to try is to
hook up a digital keyboard (touch-sensitive) to the amp, and bang out
an ascending series of notes. One problem here of course is that the
quality of the keyboard's electronics could wind up swamping everything
else. For that matter, my test-tone CD-R (which was generated entirely
in the digital domain using Cool Edit) is also pretty damn noisy,
especially at higher frequencies.
Robby
I have had the VAF DC-Xs for several years and have now updated to a
pair of Gen IVs. I say 'update' because in my humble opinion these are a
better sounding speaker. Not that the prior model was lacking, it's just
that the series IV are better (as far as I am concerned).
As quoted in many magazines, for whatever value you put on these
quotes....some people reckon that all speakers are given glowing reports to
satisfy the company paying for advertising!!! I am not one of these people.
The oft statement made, and I quote, is that "price for performance you
won't buy better". I do agree.
I am biased as my complete system is either made by VAF, the
speakers, or supplied by VAF via the Aus distributor, as in the NAD gear I'm
using.
Do yourself a favour, buy yourself a great Xmas present.....purchase
the VAF gear.
Robby
Phil Allison
"Robby"
** What commission are you on Robby ?
Or is it more like a contra deal you have going ?
.............. Phil
roughplanet
news:32hj7dF...@individual.net...
"Robby"
>> Adam,
>> I have had the VAF DC-Xs for several years and have now updated to a pair
>> of Gen IVs. I say 'update' because in my humble opinion these are a
>> better sounding speaker. Not that the prior model was lacking, it's just
>> that the series IV are better (as far as I am concerned).
In what way are they 'better' Robby?
>> As quoted in many magazines, for whatever value you put on these >>
>> quotes....some people reckon that all speakers are given glowing reports
>> to satisfy the company paying for advertising!!! I am not one of these
>> people. The oft statement made, and I quote, is that "price for
>> performance you won't buy better". I do agree.
>> I am biased as my complete system is either made by VAF, the speakers, or
>> supplied by VAF via the Aus distributor, as in the NAD gear I'm using.
Then why should anyone take any notice of an admittedly-biased
recommendation? Even if the speakers sounded like cake tins, no-one who owns
a pair would admit to it lest they be thought a fool for buying them. Very
few people are prepared to say that their equipment is awful, even if it is
& they know it.
>> Do yourself a favour, buy yourself a great Xmas present ..... purchase
>> the VAF gear.
Ignore that advice, as it's (admittedly) biased. Buy nothing that you
haven't heard; forget about anything you have been told, or worse, read in
magazines or on newsgroups like this one. Everyone's idea of what sounds
good & what doesn't is different; why else do you think there are so many
brands of every single item of hi-fi paraphernalia?
You said in your OP "So I need to collect all the info I can get to make an
evaluation and therefore have the confidence forking my money." Perhaps, but
only to allow you to narrow down your choice to 3 or 4 pairs. What you DO
need to do then is to listen to them, initially in the resellers premises,
and then again, in your own listening environment & with music that you know
well. Then & only then can you be sure that what you buy will really be what
you want.
If the seller can't or won't come at this, find another pair of speakers.
I auditioned the speakers in my audio system that way in 1977, the year I
bought them. I still have them, despite having auditioned at least 20 others
pairs over the 27 years since. Why? Because I paid a lot of money for them
way back then ($750 WAS quite a lot, even with a substantial discount) and I
wanted to be certain that they were the right speakers for me. They still
are.
> **What commission are you on Robby ?
> Or is it more like a contra deal you have going ?
Or perhaps you like them so much you mistakenly believe that everyone else
will too. They won't Robby; not everyone, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to
be the guy that gave Adam a bum steer.
ruff
Robby
I gave my opinion, if you don't like it I suppose that's 'stiff shit'.
I will still give it, if people don't wish to consider it then that's OK
with me.
Unlike the PA's on this site I'm not at all anal.
I've noticed that you get a little 'tight' at times yourself.
Lighten up you guys, buying speakers is not rocket science.
Robby
Phil Allison
"Robby"
** What commission are you on Robby ?
Or is it more like a contra deal with Vaf you have going ?
BTW
Everything is "rocket science" to an audiophool.
.............. Phil
Adam. Seychell
> "Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
> news:32hj7dF...@individual.net...
>
> "Robby"
>
>
>>>Adam,
>>>I have had the VAF DC-Xs for several years and have now updated to a pair
>>>of Gen IVs. I say 'update' because in my humble opinion these are a
>>>better sounding speaker. Not that the prior model was lacking, it's just
>>>that the series IV are better (as far as I am concerned).
>
>
> In what way are they 'better' Robby?
I'd be interested knowing too.
>
> Then why should anyone take any notice of an admittedly-biased
> recommendation? Even if the speakers sounded like cake tins, no-one who owns
> a pair would admit to it lest they be thought a fool for buying them. Very
> few people are prepared to say that their equipment is awful, even if it is
> & they know it.
Could be true, but I think someone who is disappointed with what they
purchase is more likely than not to tell other people about their
mistake. Kind of like a warning you pass on to someone so they don't
follow that same path. What satisfaction does someone get out of
deliberately misleading others to go through the same pitfall ? Is Robby
that kind of person ?
Having said that, I do take in consideration on the fact Robby is biased
towards the VAF. He was honest in this regard.
>>>Do yourself a favour, buy yourself a great Xmas present ..... purchase
>>>the VAF gear.
>
>
> Ignore that advice, as it's (admittedly) biased. Buy nothing that you
> haven't heard; forget about anything you have been told, or worse, read in
> magazines or on newsgroups like this one. Everyone's idea of what sounds
> good & what doesn't is different; why else do you think there are so many
> brands of every single item of hi-fi paraphernalia?
This is the reason why I was so interested in the published measurement
data from the VAF speakers, and comparing the data from the DC-X Gen IV
to a reference (the VAF I-66) which I have lot more confidence as being
a good sounding speaker relative to what I'm looking for.
I get the same impression about reading reviews. It is almost impossible
to differentiate among speakers using these articles alone. Measured
data is all I have access too. Maybe this is why the staff at VAF pay so
much attention to measurements (which I still think is lacking and
unscientific). One of the problems is that to actually utilize the
measurements can take considerable more effort from the buyer.
Adam
Mr. T
"Robby" <ijr...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:2uMwd.76733$K7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Adam,
> I have had the VAF DC-Xs for several years and have now updated to
a
> pair of Gen IVs. I say 'update' because in my humble opinion these are a
> better sounding speaker. Not that the prior model was lacking, it's just
> that the series IV are better (as far as I am concerned).
I can't help but wonder why someone would spend money on such a minor
upgrade. Sure the DCX IV's should be better if you are buying now, or maybe
had your old ones stolen. But is this really YOUR idea of an upgrade? Why
not save up for something that is MUCH better, even in the VAF line-up.
MrT.
roughplanet
> ruf,
> I gave my opinion, if you don't like it I suppose that's 'stiff shit'.
No Robby, whether I like it or not is not the point. Adam asked for SPECIFIC
ADVICE on the following topics:
All you offered was an admittedly-biased, totally useless comment to the
effect that the new speakers were 'better', without attempting to answer any
of the questions Adam asked, probably due to the fact that you are well out
of your depth in technical matters such as crossover design, frequency
response curves & 1/3 octave smoothing.
Audiophools like yourself, with limited technical know-how & a desire to
demonstrate it whenever & wherever possible, are an audio manufacturers'
dream. 'Let the dog see the rabbit' to coin a phrase.
Another old saying you should keep in mind is 'Better to let people think
you a fool than open your mouth and prove it'. You seem hell bent on leaving
them in no doubt whatsoever.
> I will still give it, if people don't wish to consider it then that's OK
> with me.
Yes Robby, we've noticed.
> Unlike the PA's on this site I'm not at all anal.
???
> I've noticed that you get a little 'tight' at times yourself.
Perhaps it's just that I don't suffer fools gladly.
> Lighten up you guys, buying speakers is not rocket science.
Maybe not, but it's not Harvey Norman-style buying either, and as speakers
can run into 5 figures without too much trouble, the more knowledge you
possess, the less likely you are to make an expensive mistake. Comments like
"I am biased as my complete system is either made by VAF, the
speakers, or supplied by VAF via the Aus distributor, as in the NAD gear I'm
using.
Do yourself a favour, buy yourself a great Xmas present.....purchase
the VAF gear."
are about as helpful as a recipe for pork sausages pinned to a synagogue
notice board.
ruff
Adam. Seychell
> Adam,
>
> Just out of interest, you might want to pick up the latest issue of
> Australian Hifi for a review of this loudspeaker.
>
> Unfortunately, Australian Hifi were unable to reproduce the outstanding
> measured results by VAF . According to Aus Hifi the speakers measured
> reasonably flat through most of the frequency range (+-3db) with a noticable
> rollof from 70hz.
> Their were the usual dips and humps in the frequency range, but overall they
> measured very well for loudspeakers in this price range.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Tom
>
Thanks Tom, I'll check out the magazine. I couldn't find a website for
Australian Hi-Fi, so I'll assume its in the stores at present. I'm not
that surprised to hear you say the frequency response didn't live up to
the measured results by VAF. After reading many of the past articles in
aus.hi-fi discussing validity of the measurements published on the VAF
website, I have lost some belief in some of their claims. Considering
that VAF put relatively large emphasis on measured data compared to all
other speaker manufactures I know of, they have failed to correct some
obvious mistakes listed in the specifications of some of their speakers.
For example, the DC-X Gen III and I-93 state a Phase Response of +-5
degrees from 100..20kHz, which clearly disagrees with the respective
graphs, which show more like +-15 degrees, and only at frequencies above
1kHz.
Measured data is meaningless if it is not accompanied with enough
information required for someone else to repeat these measurements and
therefore obtain the same results within expected errors. There is no
mention of the equipment, apparatus, its configuration and methods used
to obtain the measurements. VAF must release speaker analysis reports to
a similar standard of how any engineering or scientific report would be
published. Only then will their measured data have any credibility.
Adam
paul packer
<rough...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>Audiophools like yourself, with limited technical know-how & a desire to
>demonstrate it whenever & wherever possible, are an audio manufacturers'
>dream. 'Let the dog see the rabbit' to coin a phrase.
>Another old saying you should keep in mind is 'Better to let people think
>you a fool than open your mouth and prove it'. You seem hell bent on leaving
>them in no doubt whatsoever.
Hmmm. What did you and Phil discuss during that conversation anyway?
Did you convert him or did he convert you?
Phil Allison
>>
> After reading many of the past articles in aus.hi-fi discussing validity
> of the measurements published on the VAF website, I have lost some belief
> in some of their claims.
** That was the thread that prompted Phil Vaf to unleash is lawyer.
Must have got close to the bone !!!
> Considering that VAF put relatively large emphasis on measured data
> compared to all other speaker manufactures I know of, they have failed to
> correct some obvious mistakes listed in the specifications of some of
> their speakers. For example, the DC-X Gen III and I-93 state a Phase
> Response of +-5 degrees from 100..20kHz, which clearly disagrees with the
> respective graphs, which show more like +-15 degrees, and only at
> frequencies above 1kHz.
>
** All that flat phase graph stuff is a load of hooey.
Imagine a woofer that operates up to 5 kHz. Whenever the cone moves the
phase of the signal at 5 kHz must shift since distance from cone to ear is
changing. 5kHz has a wavelength of 68mm, for a 5 degrees phase shift the
cone movement needed is 5/360 x 68 = 1mm.
So, for every 1 mm of cone excursion, there is a 5 degree phase shift, so
for 6mm excursion ( on deep bass) it becomes 30 degrees. If the woofer
response goes out to 10kHz , double those numbers.
Also, peaks and dips in the response of even +/- 2dB will produce phase
shifts of circa +/- 50 degrees as the response rises and falls - in the
mid band such peaks and dips are due to internal cabinet reflections and
there are dozens of them.
The test method chosen by Vaf and others simply averages all these narrow
band +/- phase shifts to zero and presents a smooth but fake curve.
>
> Measured data is meaningless if it is not accompanied with enough
> information required for someone else to repeat these measurements and
> therefore obtain the same results within expected errors.
** Absolutely true - but even more important that full disclosure of the
gear and methods used is that the chosen method be one that *actually*
conveys meaningful information.
The current fad for "in house" speaker measurements uses a PC with special
electronics card and software ( MLSAA or Cleo, etc ) developed for the
analysis of room acoustics. For room analysis the resolution of fine detail
in phase or frequency is just not important - data that shows the results
averaged in each 1/3 octave interval is fine.
However, to identify and quantify the defects in the sound coming from a
speaker system (and thereby and distinguish an average loudspeaker from a
better one ) requires that all the fine detail be made visible in the data.
Such PC/ software packages do not allow that and instead present a "rose
coloured " version of reality. No wonder nearly every speaker maker has
adopted them in a flash !!!!!!
Old fashioned *slow* sine wave sweep testing, taking several minutes to
cover the band from 20 to 20 kHz, reveals every peak and dip with its true
value. However, one needs a large anechoic chamber or quiet outdoor area to
do such tests.
A fast audio band sweep blurs and diminishes narrow band dips and peaks
while methods like MLSAA et alia takes them right out of the game.
The "Cumulative Spectral Decay" plots reveal delayed resonances in a
speaker, ie the tendency to produce sound when there should be none. The
published graphs are not easy to interpret but the Vaf ones suggest
significant coloration will be heard when there is audible output even
several milliseconds after a transient.
.................. Phil
Robby
Must admit I don't understand what "1/3 octave smoothing or frequency
response curves" are however I do know that I believe that the VAF Gen IV is
a great sounding speaker!
I reckon the twin tweeters make an improvement in the higher ranges and
the bass appears quite a bit 'tighter', (hope I don't upset by using this
expression ruff), still, what would you know?
You guys who know it all should make your own speakers, me, I'll leave
it to the proven experts. Note I said.....proven.
Robby
Ayn Marx
Adam. Seychell wrote:
One of the problems is that to actually utilize the
> measurements can take considerable more effort from the buyer.
>
save a few more pennies and visit the VAF factory in SA? You might even
get to listen to the speakers of your choice after they explain all
those measurements .
Adam. Seychell
They don't say they don't average the narrow spurs in the graphs so its
best assumed they do average them out. Again, just incomplete
presentation of measurement data. I feel if the manufacture is going to
make measurement data publicly available then they should only do so
with full competence. Otherwise they shouldn't release anything.
>
>
>>Measured data is meaningless if it is not accompanied with enough
>>information required for someone else to repeat these measurements and
>>therefore obtain the same results within expected errors.
>
>
>
> ** Absolutely true - but even more important that full disclosure of the
> gear and methods used is that the chosen method be one that *actually*
> conveys meaningful information.
Yes, as I said the manufacture would have to publish reports to similar
standards of any scientific report. This will take more effort and may
consist of a 10 page document per speaker. In the end it most likely
will show the measured performance being is nothing spectacular.
>
> The current fad for "in house" speaker measurements uses a PC with special
> electronics card and software ( MLSAA or Cleo, etc ) developed for the
> analysis of room acoustics. For room analysis the resolution of fine detail
> in phase or frequency is just not important - data that shows the results
> averaged in each 1/3 octave interval is fine.
>
> However, to identify and quantify the defects in the sound coming from a
> speaker system (and thereby and distinguish an average loudspeaker from a
> better one ) requires that all the fine detail be made visible in the data.
> Such PC/ software packages do not allow that and instead present a "rose
> coloured " version of reality. No wonder nearly every speaker maker has
> adopted them in a flash !!!!!!
>
> Old fashioned *slow* sine wave sweep testing, taking several minutes to
> cover the band from 20 to 20 kHz, reveals every peak and dip with its true
> value. However, one needs a large anechoic chamber or quiet outdoor area to
> do such tests.
Maybe some speaker designers take a trip to the open country and do
their sine sweeps there. They can tweak crossovers on the spot.
> A fast audio band sweep blurs and diminishes narrow band dips and peaks
> while methods like MLSAA et alia takes them right out of the game.
I'm not at all familiar with MLSSA or any other loudspeaker measurement
system but I'd assume they all have the features for "smoothing"
responses. I would guess that slowly swept sine wave has one advantage
over MLS (maximum length sequence) in that maximum excitation energy is
given to the speaker, thus improving S/N and detail.
> The "Cumulative Spectral Decay" plots reveal delayed resonances in a
> speaker, ie the tendency to produce sound when there should be none. The
> published graphs are not easy to interpret but the Vaf ones suggest
> significant coloration will be heard when there is audible output even
> several milliseconds after a transient.
>
"Cumulative Spectral Decay" is something I have no idea how to
interpret or how it is measured. Can't comment on this yet.
Phil Allison
Phil Allison
>>
>> ** All that flat phase graph stuff is a load of hooey.
>>
>>
>> band +/- phase shifts to zero and presents a smooth but fake curve.
>
> They don't say they don't average the narrow spurs in the graphs so its
> best assumed they do average them out. Again, just incomplete presentation
> of measurement data. I feel if the manufacture is going to make
> measurement data publicly available then they should only do so with full
> competence. Otherwise they shouldn't release anything.
>
** What you "feel" is of little help to anyone.
The commercial world operates within the rules and limits set by law ( or at
least it pretends to) - not what would be technically or scientifically
desirable.
Since there is no LAW compelling manufacturers to disclose performance
characteristics of speakers ( or petty much anything else) makers are free
to say nothing OR reveal only flattering data OR as is the case here, data
collected by a method that flatters the product and makes meaningful
comparisons impossible.
There ARE consumer laws against publishing false and misleading claims -
but this does not prevent info being presented that is virtually
meaningless, incomplete or irrelevant as long as it is NOT actually false
and seriously misleading.
> Yes, as I said the manufacture would have to publish reports to similar
> standards of any scientific report. This will take more effort and may
> consist of a 10 page document per speaker. In the end it most likely will
> show the measured performance being is nothing spectacular.
** See above - the law does not require a manufacturer to present
objective data at all. Very few consumers are able to correctly interpret
technical data anyway - so makers are wary of revealing anything that
their competitors are not.
>
> I'm not at all familiar with MLSSA or any other loudspeaker measurement
> system but I'd assume they all have the features for "smoothing"
> responses.
** The method inherently smooths, additional smoothing can be had at the
whim of the user.
> I would guess that slowly swept sine wave has one advantage over MLS
> (maximum length sequence) in that maximum excitation energy is given to
> the speaker, thus improving S/N and detail.
>
** Even in the days when sine wave sweep tests for speakers were the
orm - makers would often cheat by using fast sweeps and setting the pen
writing speed to "slow". Graphs like the ones you see on the Vaf site could
easily be produced for speakers that had poor sound quality.
Back then, one had to inspect published graphs *very carefully* to see what
the paper and pen speeds used were and judge the wiggly line accordingly.
>
> "Cumulative Spectral Decay" is something I have no idea how to interpret
> or how it is measured. Can't comment on this yet.
** Basically - the data shows the resulting SPL over time and frequency
AFTER a brief, wide band transient has stopped. This reveals the propensity
of the speaker system to store sound energy either in the moving mass of the
cone materials or due to wave reflections from the internal surfaces of the
enclosures and THEN release that energy some time later. The ideal is that
there be no such hangover sound.
In practice, there will always be some and audibility depends on just how
much for how long and at what frequencies.
For example - 2 milliseconds of aftersound at 50 Hz would be a good result
since only a tenth of a cycle is involved. However, 2 milliseconds of
aftersound at 5 kHz would be very bad since sound would still be being
produced a whole 10 whole cycles after it ought to have ceased.
This would indicate a very high Q resonance in the tweeter or a strong
surface reflection about 34 cm behind the source of the sound giving an
audible echo.
............... Phil
Richard Goldsmith
> I'm not even sure I like "harsh".
**Just a matter of semantics ultimately. OK, how about "horrible" then? At
least to me they were, I could never see the appeal.
Some people are simply sensitive to
> any mids that are not completely smooth, but that's hard to achieve
> with an MTM design.
**Perhaps that explains the technical basis, but doesn't alter those
characteristics as a matter of fact. Putting it bluntly, I never liked the
DC-X, and no amount of rationalisation will change it for me. "Best bang
for buck" type justifications abound on this NG, but doesn't alter the
issue.
I don't think the Gen IIIs are any worse than
> anything else comparable, in this regard.
**Are there any other comparable speakers around? I thought PV was proud of
their uniqueness, 2 way MTM with minimal x-overs etc. Maybe some of the
less successful Duntechs tried that also? There was a funny one using
aerogel dual 8" drivers and a tweeter, maybe the Viceroy or something?
Dunno. Perhaps you can elucidate. I also recall one of the worst attempts
in that vein I heard were a huge Krix 2-way, may have been called the
Esoterix Mk 1, that used two 10" woofers and an expensive tweeter, and they
had impressive bass but awful screechy mid-tops.
Public Image Ltd
>
> I don't think the Gen IIIs are any worse than
> > anything else comparable, in this regard.
>
> **Are there any other comparable speakers around? I thought PV was
proud of
> their uniqueness, 2 way MTM with minimal x-overs etc. Maybe some of
the
> less successful Duntechs tried that also? There was a funny one
using
> aerogel dual 8" drivers and a tweeter, maybe the Viceroy or
something?
> Dunno. Perhaps you can elucidate. I also recall one of the worst
attempts
> in that vein I heard were a huge Krix 2-way, may have been called the
> Esoterix Mk 1, that used two 10" woofers and an expensive tweeter,
and they
> had impressive bass but awful screechy mid-tops.
I guess I would regard "comparable" as any MTM floorstander with 6" or
more woofers, regardless of the Xover. Locally, that includes The
Loudspeaker Kit's TL6s and Jaycar's JV-60s/80s. My impressions are
generally that 5" drivers seem to be the mid refinement limit, which of
course means less bass. In fact, a 5" floorstander design strikes me as
a little optimistic, but that's not unheard of.
Maybe instead of trashing the DC-Xs we could agree that all design
involves trade-offs, and certain features are more significant to
different people? Yes, I could have gone and bought some more refined,
albeit anaemic, speakers, but I simply didn't want to. There are some
big, expensive names there that I could rubbish for their wimp factor
if I wanted to. As I have indicated previously, the concept of
offloading bass duties to active subs makes a lot of (theoretical)
sense, and could be the way of the future, although you wouldn't know
it from the responses of the manufacturers. Anyone already running a
sub is effectively acknowledging a deficiency in their speakers.
Maybe instead of trashing the DC-Xs we could also talk about what they
do well? Imaging, for example - see all the comments about the phantom
centre speaker that people make. They punch way above their weight
here. Note that you probably won't be able to achieve this at home
without an extremely well-dampened room. Cabinet resonances are also
handled very well. How the Gen IVs could have tighter bass is beyond
me, but I am willing to be persuaded. So with this context, I hope you
can see why I don't regard a bit of mid harshness as quite so
devastating.
One reservation about the Gen IVs, however, is whether their
price-point makes them such compelling value any more. I guess it gets
back to what the competitor speaker might be considered to be.
Adam. Seychell
Interesting read. So in a nutshell, an MTM speaker with 200mm woofers
(like in the DC-X) will always be compromise of extended low frequency
range for increased midrange distortion. Now I'm beginning to see why
some of those good bookshelf speakers in the $1500 to $2000 range can
reproduce the accuracy in midbases and above that's comparable to some
of the $6000 ~ $8000 floor standing speakers.
If it means anything the new DC-X's have changed to carbon fiber woofers
and I believe the crossover frequency is reduced somewhat too. There is
also dual tweeters which I guess was chosen to increases power handing.
I figure the extra power should allow (in theory) a reduction in
crossover frequency, thus demanding less midrange from the two woofers.
Have VAF gone down this route with the Gen IV's ?
I ended up ordering the DC-X's Gen IV kit form without cabinets
($1149+freight), since I have time and equipment to build the cabinets.
I do not have the dough to buy a speaker with a dedicated midrange at
this point in time.
Adam
Dennistraeger
drivers - impossible unless someone invents a good tweeter that goes real low
tp compensate for the crap mid range of any 10" driver.I listenned to the Krix
some time aago & was very disappointed.
IMO the new Vaf Gen DC-7's are the abosolute stand out in the DC range.
Comparable to any 2 way floorstander I have ever heard (& I have listened to
around 100).
They are the best relatively affordable 2 way available in Oz at present.
Even though the new DCX is an advance on the previous model , IMO comparing
them side by side the 8" woofers of the DCX (ideally suited to Home cinema -
deeper bass) just dont quite have the seemless mid range/vocal purity &
projection(as though the singer is right in the room) of the 6 ' drivers of the
DC-7's( & the seemlass transition to the treble/tweter range). The bass of the
DC7's still defies their considerable size, It(the bass) is also quick & tight
something sometimes lacking in too larger bass drivers.
I strongly recommend an audition of these incredible speakers.
Adam. Seychell
Thanks for your advice. I was reading some article about midrange
distortion at http://www.linkwitzlab.com/mid_dist.htm , and it showed
only the high price tagged 8" drivers (like Seas Excel W22EX001) are
capable of comparably low distortion in the mids. The new DC-X must be a
compromise to cater for the home theater market with its 8" drivers. How
would you compare the I-66 or I-93 Signature series to the new DC-7's
(excluding bass performance of course) ?
Robby
Agree with you Dennis, you will probably get a couple of
"know alls" who will not though.
Robby
Dennistraeger
I suppose the main difference(besides loudness capability & bass) is the I-93's
Seas Excell Magnesium Midrange drivers. - The detail & speed is quite
remarkable with these drivers - can sound harsher than the new DC7's on bad
recordings however. The new DC-7;s are close in many areas.
Speakers I have heard using the Seas Magnesiums for mid range use(some
companies use them for bass/mids in 2 way systems,but Vaf are not convinced
they are completely suitable for low bass use.), seem to have all the best
attributes of a good electrostatic speaker in the mids. Of course most
Electrostatic speakers have limitations in other areas including at both
frequency extremes,loudness,dynamics and often a terrible load on the amp, but
they usually have good/great midrange,but dissapoint me overall.
Phil Allison
"Dennistraeger"
>
>I actually have a pair of I-93's (& old 2nd generation DC7's).
> I suppose the main difference(besides loudness capability & bass) is the
> I-93's
> Seas Excell Magnesium Midrange drivers. - The detail & speed is quite
> remarkable with these drivers - can sound harsher than the new DC7's on
> bad
> recordings however. The new DC-7;s are close in many areas.
>
> Speakers I have heard using the Seas Magnesiums for mid range use(some
> companies use them for bass/mids in 2 way systems,but Vaf are not
> convinced
> they are completely suitable for low bass use.), seem to have all the best
> attributes of a good electrostatic speaker in the mids.
** Not bloody likely ...........
( apologies to GBS)
> Of course most
> Electrostatic speakers have limitations in other areas including at both
> frequency extremes, loudness,dynamics ...
** Utter bullshit. Electrostatics tweeters ( as in the two Quad
esigns ) go louder with far less THD and far better transient accuracy than
any dome or ribbon tweeter, they have no thermal or magnetic compression and
operate to beyond the limit of audibility.
The extreme lows can be covered by a sub if needed - most listeners
find they do not need it in the case of the ESL63s /988s.
> .... and often a terrible load on the amp,
** More bullshit - the ESL 63 is a very easy load for any amp ( always
above 5 ohms 20 Hz to 20 kHz) while most amps can easily drive the ESL 57
( between 8 to 16 ohms load from 35 Hz to 7 kHz ) just fine.
> but they usually have good/great midrange,but dissapoint me overall.
** Yeah - right, they do not have the distortions and colorations of the
second rate box speakers you are addicted too hearing. The bass is not made
thick and boomy by room nodes and you need a well damped room to appreciate
the benefits.
............... Phil
Genuflect
>
>
>
> ( apologies to GBS)
>
What sort of loony apologises to a dead man?
lookingforl...@hemustbelonely.com
wrote:
wow you posted on Christmas day...you must be lonely....
Riddo
heard midrange to equal them. That said, the closest I have heard to
that kind of low distortion, effortlessly transparent sound was at a
VAF demonstration a few years ago at a Darling Harbour motel room.
Phil Vafiadis had them in a room where they were (no real choice)
almost up against a wall firing across a room that wasn't any more than
about ten feet across. The only similarity I could think of was with
the old Quads. I hadn't heard any box speaker with that kind of natural
midrange. There was little or no apparent "thickening" in the mids, and
the bass was not at all exaggerated. Very impressive, as were Phil
Vafiadis, his sidekick (sorry I don't remember his name) and Trevor
Wilson, all of whom were very helpful and not at all pushy, - probably
a satanists convention to you, Phil.
Graeme
paul packer
A polite one.
Robert
Are you claiming that Phil Allison is a polite loony?
Phil Allison
"Riddo"
** Could this be a "paid political announcement " ????
No model numbers, no details and * NO* Quad ESLs there to actually A-B.
BTW:
Having TW and PV in partnership, in the same room at the same time, is
more than enough to punch a hole in the floor straight through to Hades.
.............. Phil
paul packer
Well, half of that, anyway.
cutth...@iamsickofidiots.com
wrote:
Excuse me I think I'm gonna puke.
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
mmmmmm milkyway...perhaps this audiophool is a lunatic.
for once I might completely agree with anything that Phil Allison
writes in reply to that piece of bullshit.
Alan Rutlidge
"Phil Allison" <phila...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:336g4iF...@individual.net...
So this means they are ideally suited to SACD (or now eat your words Phil -
"Scam AudioPhool Compact Disc" as I believe you refer to the format as).
Remember Phil how you were raving about how much of a con SACD must be
because the frequency response extends beyond 20kHz (and we all know Phil
Allison is always sooooooo bloody right about everything) and it's pointless
as Phil says we can't hear or perceive anything above 20kHz. So Phil what's
the point in your precious Quads operating beyond audibility if (as you
claim) we can't hear it anyway?
Although the Quad ESL57 and ESL63 electrostatics have enjoyed a good
reputation for their reproduction in midrange frequencies it is true they
lack useful acoustic output in the lowest octave and they do exhibit a
pronounced HF roll-off over 12kHz in a practical room enviornment.
http://www.quadesl.com/graphics/quad63_frequencyresponse.jpg
>
> The extreme lows can be covered by a sub if needed - most listeners
> find they do not need it in the case of the ESL63s /988s.
Oh no, not adding a sub woofer????? That wouldn't be hi-fi !!! Starting
to sound like a HT system to me :) And we all know how sensitive Phil is
about anything remotely HT in this NG.
>
>
> > .... and often a terrible load on the amp,
>
>
> ** More bullshit - the ESL 63 is a very easy load for any amp ( always
> above 5 ohms 20 Hz to 20 kHz) while most amps can easily drive the ESL
57
> ( between 8 to 16 ohms load from 35 Hz to 7 kHz ) just fine.
Bulldust. Check out the impedance curve of the original ESL57s.
http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml
At 15kHz the impedance approaches 2 ohms, a difficult load for anything but
the most expensive amplifiers to drive, not to mention that electrostatics
typically present a capacitive load to the amplifier, whereas most moving
coil and ribbon speakers (e.g. the Heil Air Motion Transformer) represent a
typically an inductive and resistive load to the amplifier.
>
>
> > but they usually have good/great midrange,but dissapoint me overall.
>
>
> ** Yeah - right, they do not have the distortions and colorations of
the
> second rate box speakers you are addicted too hearing. The bass is not
made
> thick and boomy by room nodes and you need a well damped room to
appreciate
> the benefits.
>
>
>
>
>
> ............... Phil
>
>
So Phil, now that you no longer have the Quad ESL57s and you have returned
the Quad ESL63 to Harry, what are you using as a pair of speakers? Not ones
with cones and moving coils I hope?
%%%% Now watch how the artless dodger Phil dodges this question %%%% :)
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Rutlidge
Ranting lunacy as usual. Must be a full moon.
Everyone here knows Phil Allison thinks Trevor Wilson and Philip Vafidas are
involved in some sort of conspiracy to take over the audio world.
Phil, do yourself a favour - get a life!
Cheers,
Alan
Phil Allison
"Phil Allison"
> Dennistraeger
>
> Of course most
> Electrostatic speakers have limitations in other areas including at both
> frequency extremes, loudness,dynamics ...
>>
>>
>> ** Utter bullshit. Electrostatics tweeters ( as in the two Quad
> than any dome or ribbon tweeter, they have no thermal or magnetic
> compression
> and operate to beyond the limit of audibility.
>
** Nothing is ideally suited to "Scam Audiophool Compact Disc" .
> Remember Phil how you were raving about how much of a con SACD must be
> because the frequency response extends beyond 20kHz ....
** That is one, small part of the con.
> So Phil what's
> the point in your precious Quads operating beyond audibility if (as you
> claim) we can't hear it anyway?
** Errrr - no real point and no harm either.
The limit of audibility with *music programme* is about 18 kHz for young
adults.
The OP falsely claimed there was an audible HF limitation with ESLs that
does not exist.
** (Snip false data)
>> The extreme lows can be covered by a sub if needed - most listeners
>> find they do not need it in the case of the ESL63s /988s.
>
>
> Oh no, not adding a sub woofer????? That wouldn't be hi-fi !!!
** Utter nonsense.
>> > .... and often a terrible load on the amp,
>>
>>
>> ** More bullshit - the ESL 63 is a very easy load for any amp (
>> always
>> above 5 ohms 20 Hz to 20 kHz) while most amps can easily drive the ESL
> 57 ( between 8 to 16 ohms load from 35 Hz to 7 kHz ) just fine.
>
> Bulldust. Check out the impedance curve of the original ESL57s.
> http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml
> At 15kHz the impedance approaches 2 ohms, a difficult load for anything
> but
> the most expensive amplifiers to drive,
** MORE RUTMANIAC BULLSHIT !!!
The max power output needed on music programme between at 15 to 20 kHz is a
tiny fraction of full power.
The Quad mk 2, 15 watt valve amp ( from the 1950s) had no problem.
The Quad 303, 45 watt ( 8 ohms ) transistor amp ( from 1968 ) had no
problem.
The average home hi-fi amp can drive either Quad model.
( Shame that the Telstra sheltered workshop did not teach the Rutmaniac fool
one damn thing about hi-fi - all very different to stinking, bloody
telephones)
> not to mention that electrostatics typically present a capacitive load to
> the amplifier,
> whereas most moving
> coil and ribbon speakers (e.g. the Heil Air Motion Transformer) represent
> a
> typically an inductive and resistive load to the amplifier.
>
** Shame about what passive x-overs do the to phase angle in some famous 3
way systems - much harder to drive than any Quad ESL.
The AR 11 is a good example - highly capacitive above 1 kHz dropping to 2
ohms in the range from 5 kHz to 10 kHz.
NOTE: 2 ohms at ***5 kHz*** - not 15 or 18 kHz like the ESL57.
> So Phil, now that you no longer have the Quad ESL57s and you have returned
> the Quad ESL63 to Harry, what are you using as a pair of speakers? Not
> ones
> with cones and moving coils I hope?
> %%%% Now watch how the artless dodger Phil dodges this question %%%% :)
>
** Two way Vifas with a sub - active crossovers for both.
Massively inferior to either Quad ESL.
.............. Phil
Dennistraeger
You really have to have an open mind when listenning to some of the newer
designs & certainly drivers that are around these days.
The Seas magnesium driver as reported by many speaker engineers around the
world are an advance(especially in distortion & a bit more difficult to design
a crossover for & they are pretty expensive), than anything measured/heard
before it, it does have many of the attributes in the midrange of Quads etc.
Ever sat down(with good source & amps in a reasonably good room & listenned to
the I-93 or I66 with your favourite recordings Phil?
Phil Allison
"Dennistraeger" = snipping, lying, Vaf stooge.
** Who is this post directed to Dennis ??
Only *** bloody mental retards*** remove all trace of prior posts.
> Agree Quads did have great midrange, but....
** They still do, you stupid arsehole - it never went away.
Great "midrange" that extends all the way from ** 50 Hz to 20 kHz ***
!!!!!!!!!
> You really have to have an open mind when listenning to some of the newer
> designs & certainly drivers that are around these days.
>
** There is a big difference between an "open mind" and an totally empty
head like yours.
> The Seas magnesium driver as reported by many speaker engineers around the
> world are an advance(especially in distortion & a bit more difficult to
> design
> a crossover for & they are pretty expensive), than anything
> measured/heard
> before it, it does have many of the attributes in the midrange of Quads
> etc.
>
** Bull.
Lets see you try to prove that absurd claim ( or even define what it
means).
Must have got it from Phil Vaf - right ?
What does he pay you to be his secret salesman ???
............. Phil
Ayn Marx
Phil Allison wrote:
> "Dennistraeger" = snipping, lying, Vaf stooge.
>
the newer dynamics as being as transparent, or whatever, as ELS, no
amount of quoting specs will convince them to hear otherwise.
By the way luv, I hear my Whatmoughs as MORE transparent than my
friends Quad 57's in the mids driven by the same little black boxes so
I'm deluded too. I think you should give up on us, this entire issue
just gets you so upset your Soundsticks are going to melt.
Phil Allison
"Ayn Marx" - who is it really ??
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>> "Dennistraeger" = snipping, lying, Vaf stooge.
>>
> Phil dear, Why do you bother with this endless debate?
** Which "debate" is that ???
You snipped the context of your OWN remark.
> If people hear
> the newer dynamics as being as transparent, or whatever, as ELS, no
> amount of quoting specs will convince them to hear otherwise.
** I am not trying to do any such thing - bitch brain.
I merely posted the relevant facts re ESLs to counter the BLATANT lies
posted by " Dennis the Stooge" who got them right from Phil Vaf's verbal
marketing drivel.
Lies need to be publicly contradicted - or else the Goebbels Principle
takes over.
> By the way luv, I hear my Whatmoughs as MORE transparent than my
> friends Quad 57's in the mids driven by the same little black boxes so
> I'm deluded too.
** You ( whoever you are) are just plain delusional - period.
............ Phil
Alan Rutlidge
http://www.quadesl.com/graphics/quad63_frequencyresponse.jpg is NOT false
data. It was what was actually measured. Read the entire article
http://www.quadesl.com/quad_esl63.shtml It is how the ESL63s actually
perform in a REAL listening room. I'm surprised Phil you didn't quote the
same link you did in a previous thread about how good the ESL63s were. You
know - the one where the tests were done on a pair of Quads in an open field
and measured with a microphone 7 metres off the ground!
Quad Boy tests out the Reviewer's claims:
I can just see it now. Phil (a.k.a. Quad Boy) takes the Quads ESL63s out of
the bedsit to the park down the road. Purched atop a 7 metre pole (like the
galah he is - attempting to recreate the optimum listening position his
favourite Quad reviewer's microphone was placed in), Phil pushes the play
button on the remote control for the Sony CDP-101. The disc slides in and
starts to play. Unfortunately the volume level is down by about 9dB on one
of the speakers he had been tinkering with earlier that day. He slides down
the 7 metre pole and adjusts the balance control on the preamp that drives
his tinny sounding Quad 303 transistor power amplifier. Adjustments don't
improve the sound and the amp soon runs out of puff.
Having acheived nothing other than electrocuting 47 lawn beetles, Quad Boy
gets his mate (err correction - Phil has no mates) to help him load up the
second hand 20 year old Quads into the car and dumps them back in Harry's
showroom and demands a full refund.
>
>
> >> The extreme lows can be covered by a sub if needed - most listeners
> >> find they do not need it in the case of the ESL63s /988s.
> >
> >
> > Oh no, not adding a sub woofer????? That wouldn't be hi-fi !!!
>
>
> ** Utter nonsense.
>
>
> >> > .... and often a terrible load on the amp,
> >>
> >>
> >> ** More bullshit - the ESL 63 is a very easy load for any amp (
> >> always
> >> above 5 ohms 20 Hz to 20 kHz) while most amps can easily drive the
ESL
> > 57 ( between 8 to 16 ohms load from 35 Hz to 7 kHz ) just fine.
> >
> > Bulldust. Check out the impedance curve of the original ESL57s.
> > http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml
> > At 15kHz the impedance approaches 2 ohms, a difficult load for anything
> > but
> > the most expensive amplifiers to drive,
>
>
> ** MORE RUTMANIAC BULLSHIT !!!
The graph speaks for itself Quad Boy. Goes down to 2 ohms.
>
> The max power output needed on music programme between at 15 to 20 kHz is
a
> tiny fraction of full power.
>
> The Quad mk 2, 15 watt valve amp ( from the 1950s) had no problem.
>
> The Quad 303, 45 watt ( 8 ohms ) transistor amp ( from 1968 ) had no
> problem.
And what a blood aweful sounding amp the 303 was too.
>
> The average home hi-fi amp can drive either Quad model.
>
> ( Shame that the Telstra sheltered workshop did not teach the Rutmaniac
fool
> one damn thing about hi-fi - all very different to stinking, bloody
> telephones)
Err, last time I checked, Telstra was a telecommunications company, not a
speaker manufacturer.
>
>
>
> > not to mention that electrostatics typically present a capacitive load
to
> > the amplifier,
> > whereas most moving
> > coil and ribbon speakers (e.g. the Heil Air Motion Transformer)
represent
> > a
> > typically an inductive and resistive load to the amplifier.
> >
>
>
> ** Shame about what passive x-overs do the to phase angle in some famous
3
> way systems - much harder to drive than any Quad ESL.
>
> The AR 11 is a good example - highly capacitive above 1 kHz dropping to
2
> ohms in the range from 5 kHz to 10 kHz.
>
> NOTE: 2 ohms at ***5 kHz*** - not 15 or 18 kHz like the ESL57.
>
Still doesn't change the facts. http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml
Got a link for everyone to read on the AR11s?
>
>
> > So Phil, now that you no longer have the Quad ESL57s and you have
returned
> > the Quad ESL63 to Harry, what are you using as a pair of speakers? Not
> > ones
> > with cones and moving coils I hope?
> > %%%% Now watch how the artless dodger Phil dodges this question %%%% :)
> >
>
> ** Two way Vifas with a sub - active crossovers for both.
>
> Massively inferior to either Quad ESL.
Which models Phil? Bottom of the range? Is that why they sound so crappy?
Cough up...
>
>
>
>
>
> .............. Phil
>
>
Cheers,
Alan
Phil Allison
>
>
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>> ** (Snip false data)
>
> http://www.quadesl.com/graphics/quad63_frequencyresponse.jpg is NOT false
> data. It was what was actually measured.
** By some damn hobbyist, at his home using god knows what gear.
Published graphs from *credible* sources all disagree with that one.
> I'm surprised Phil you didn't quote the
> same link you did in a previous thread about how good the ESL63s were.
> You
> know - the one where the tests were done on a pair of Quads in an open
> field
> and measured with a microphone 7 metres off the ground!
>
** Very nice way to do objective speaker tests - when no large anechoic
room is available.
James Moir and Associates knew what they were doing.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/textplots.htm
Not that some know nothing, evil, stinking FUCKWIT like the Rutmaniac
would know.
>> ( Shame that the Telstra sheltered workshop did not teach the Rutmaniac
>> fool one damn thing about hi-fi - all very different to stinking,
>> bloody
>> telephones)
>
> Err, last time I checked, Telstra was a telecommunications company, not a
> speaker manufacturer.
** The asinine Rutmaniac FUCKWIT fails to see the point - yet again.
He knows bugger all about hi-fi - since his idea of good sound is what
comes from a stinking telephone !!!!!
ROTFLMAO !!!!!
> Still doesn't change the facts. http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml
** The fact is that is an easy impedance curve to drive - bog standard
amps can do it no problems.
Been doing it since 1957.
No good telling a BRAIN DEAD TURD like the Rutmaniac anything.
Shame he was not in Phuket this Christmas.
Then God would have dealt out his judgement on the pig.
............... Phil
Alan Rutlidge
> "Alan Rutlidge = congenital, stinking liar and insane HT freak.
> >
> >
> > "Phil Allison"
> >>
> >> ** (Snip false data)
> >
> > http://www.quadesl.com/graphics/quad63_frequencyresponse.jpg is NOT
false
> > data. It was what was actually measured.
>
>
> ** By some damn hobbyist, at his home using god knows what gear.
>
> Published graphs from *credible* sources all disagree with that one.
Oh, and which ones might these be? The Phil Allison's audio lab or
distorted and highly biased opinions?
>
>
>
>
> > I'm surprised Phil you didn't quote the
> > same link you did in a previous thread about how good the ESL63s were.
> > You
> > know - the one where the tests were done on a pair of Quads in an open
> > field
> > and measured with a microphone 7 metres off the ground!
> >
>
>
> ** Very nice way to do objective speaker tests - when no large
anechoic
> room is available.
>
> James Moir and Associates knew what they were doing.
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/textplots.htm
>
Yeah sure, anything you say Quad Boy. Everyone has a listening room that is
a football field and they sit purched upon a 7 mertre pole to do their
listening. Gee Phil that must be some gigantic bedsit you have such that
the room acoustics don't affect the response of the Quads.
> Not that some know nothing, evil, stinking FUCKWIT like the Rutmaniac
> would know.
>
Gee Phil, someone better buy you the latest copy of the Reader's Digest
dictionary. You seem to be repeating the same phrases over and over again.
Like a broken record you are starting to prove beyond any reasonable doubt
you are same the old boring fart you always were.
>
>
> >> ( Shame that the Telstra sheltered workshop did not teach the Rutmaniac
> >> fool one damn thing about hi-fi - all very different to stinking,
> >> bloody
> >> telephones)
> >
> > Err, last time I checked, Telstra was a telecommunications company, not
a
> > speaker manufacturer.
>
>
>
> ** The asinine Rutmaniac FUCKWIT fails to see the point - yet again.
>
> He knows bugger all about hi-fi - since his idea of good sound is what
> comes from a stinking telephone !!!!!
>
> ROTFLMAO !!!!!
Now for someone who always is the first cab off the rank blowing his horn
about others who post OT discussion in this NG, go live by your own words
Quad Boy and limit the discussion to hi-fi. I'm quite sure there is at
least one telecommunications NG you can go bother the hell out of. Take
your telephone discussion there.
>
>
> > Still doesn't change the facts. http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml
>
>
> ** The fact is that is an easy impedance curve to drive - bog standard
> amps can do it no problems.
>
> Been doing it since 1957.
>
> No good telling a BRAIN DEAD TURD like the Rutmaniac anything.
>
> Shame he was not in Phuket this Christmas.
Figures why you aren't there. The Thais would run a racist bigot like you
out of town......
>
> Then God would have dealt out his judgement on the pig.
>
> ............... Phil
>
And what judgement might that be Quad Boy? More OT garbage from Quad Boy
who's only way to express himself is to try to gain kudos by abusing people
and using profanity.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rutlidge/alanindex.html
Insert quote:
> "** Two way Vifas with a sub - active crossovers for both.
>
> Massively inferior to either Quad ESL.
Which models Phil? Bottom of the range? Is that why they sound so crappy?
Cough up...
%%%% Notice how Quad Boy snipped the question and is actively avoiding it?
%%%%
Cat got you tongue Quad Boy? Or are you simply tooooooo ashamed to answer
the question?
Cheers,
Alan
Steve Batt
"Alan Rutlidge .iinet.net.au>" <rutlidge@<No_Spam> wrote in message
news:41cfb5d3$0$5717$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Steve
Phil Allison
** As nothing in this post was answered properly - I am posting it again.
( This could go on and on.)
>
"Alan Rutlidge = congenital, stinking liar and insane HT freak.
>
>
> "Phil Allison"
>>
>> ** (Snip false data)
>
> http://www.quadesl.com/graphics/quad63_frequencyresponse.jpg is NOT false
> data. It was what was actually measured.
** By some damn hobbyist, at his home using god knows what gear.
Published graphs from *credible* sources all disagree with that one.
> I'm surprised Phil you didn't quote the
> same link you did in a previous thread about how good the ESL63s were.
> You
> know - the one where the tests were done on a pair of Quads in an open
> field
> and measured with a microphone 7 metres off the ground!
>
** Very nice way to do objective speaker tests - when no large anechoic
room is available.
James Moir and Associates knew what they were doing.
http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/textplots.htm
Not that some know nothing, evil, stinking FUCKWIT like the Rutmaniac
would know.
>> ( Shame that the Telstra sheltered workshop did not teach the Rutmaniac
>> fool one damn thing about hi-fi - all very different to stinking,
>> bloody
>> telephones)
>
> Err, last time I checked, Telstra was a telecommunications company, not a
> speaker manufacturer.
** The asinine Rutmaniac FUCKWIT fails to see the point - yet again.
He knows bugger all about hi-fi - since his idea of good sound is what
comes from a stinking telephone !!!!!
ROTFLMAO !!!!!
> Still doesn't change the facts. http://www.quadesl.com/quad_main.shtml
** The fact is that is an easy impedance curve to drive - bog standard
amps can do it no problems.
Been doing it since 1957.
No good telling a BRAIN DEAD TURD like the Rutmaniac anything.
Shame he was not in Phuket this Christmas.
Then God would have dealt out his judgement on the pig.
............... Phil
Phil Allison
"Steve Batt"
>
> BORING
>
> Steve
>
** Then why re-post all of it ??
If you have any ideas on how to shut the Rutmanic troll up - let me know.
Illegal ones included.
............ Phil
Phil Allison
"Rutlidge = congenital, stinking liar and insane HT freak.
>
> Phil Allison
>>
>>
>> Shame he was not in Phuket this Christmas.
>>
>
>
> Figures why you aren't there. The Thais would run a racist bigot like you
> out of town......
>
** The Thais not are adverse to racists, long as they are spending money
there.
Plus they welcome Aussie child fuckers with open arms and protect them
from the law too.
That says all you *ever* need to know about the Thais.
............. Phil
Alan Rutlidge
Alan Rutlidge
Is that an open threat Phil Allison of Summer Hill, Sydney NSW?
Just remember what you write in newsgroups, the words may come back to haunt
you.
Your posts in this thread have been archived and e-mailed on to a number of
people.
You don't frighten me. You are all bark and too gutless to get out from
behind the closed door of your stuffy little rented bed-sit and do anything
constructive.
BTW. If you think this feeble threat to stop me posting is going to work,
think again.
I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm on your case Phil and intend to
stay there.
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Rutlidge
> "Alan Rutlidge = congenital, stinking liar and insane HT freak.
>
>
> Shame he was not in Phuket this Christmas.
>
> Then God would have dealt out his judgement on the pig.
>
> ............... Phil
>
Phil, by anybody's stretch of the imagination your post above is in
extremely bad taste if not truly transgressing the bounds of human decency
in light of the tragic events of 27 December, 2004 in the Bay of Bengal and
the Andaman Sea.
I don't give a rat's behind what you think of me personally but aligning
what you hope might happen to me with the plight of hundreds of Thais,
tourists and ex-pats in Patong Beach (Phuket Island) and along the west
coast of the peninsula is simply disgusting. I think most people who have
read your post will agree that not only is it in bad taste it goes to
illustrate just what a sick and ugly person you really are.
Have you no compassion for your fellow human beings? In Patong alone,
hundreds of Thai locals, tourists and ex-pats have lost their lives, members
of their families, their homes, their businesses and their livelihoods.
Some of whom are friends and business associates of mine. Not to mention
the 13,000 + who died and countless more suffering in the Indian
sub-continent whom I have no personal knowledge of but to which my
compassion and my sympathy is extended to.
In future, perhaps you might think about engaging your brain before your
fingers go into action on the keyboard.
Shame, shame, shame on you Phil Allison.
Dennistraeger
>** Bull.
>
> Lets see you try to prove that absurd claim ( or even define what it
>means).
Would'nt take anyone long to find out.
Just one quote - Joachim Gerhard Head Engineer at Audio Physic (Germany)
"The 5 " Seas Excell Magnesium Driver has the best sound I have ever heard.
Between 50 & 300kz we measured 10 times less distortion than traditional
drivers" etc etc
No I have(& never have) absolutely no commercial or financial involvement with
Vaf.
I am lucky enough to have heard many great speakers & systems(i.e. Halcro Amps)
over a long period of time(right back to the early Duntech days) & fortunate
enough to have sufficient finances to build & purchase some great components.
Ayn Marx
Phil Allison wrote:
>
>
> ** You ( whoever you are) are just plain delusional - period.
>
the recent tsunumi in Sth East Asia. Who are you Phil ? ? ?
? ?
Patrick Turner
Ayn Marx wrote:
Who is Phil? a man without an adequate dose of medications,
and one who probably wouldn't respond well to group therapy.
His brain is seriously muddled at this time, but like all manic-depressives
or other varieties of maniacs they cannot see their own condition and there
isn't always someone around
to escort them off to a physician for care.
The majority of their condition is they cannot see it, and they resent any
comment about it.
One can only ignore his insanity, and hope that he recovers when
the chemist opens so he can renew his prescriptions.
Meanwhile Ayn, have a great worry-free break; what you didn't get finished
last year never will be,
and its no use being concerned, and then in the new year one can start with
a new slate, and
remember that you have the option of being cool yourself in the midst of
the flying
brick bats, rotten cabbages, and ill conceived attacks hurled in your
direction.
I have invented a tube powered cabbage&brick deflector suit with solid
state
buffererd output stage with a 26dB Ruggedness factor, ( like a damping
factor
only very dry, ) and it allows full view of your assailants even when they
are in full
launch mode of their N&D missiles.
There is a cheap upgrade already available in the form of
battery powered mosfut coupled mini windscreen wipers for the
negative feedback capacitive googgles needed while perusing
the audio groups on the Web.
This saves one the power costs when wearing the full deflector suit.
The googgles snap firmly into place on a helmet, available in pink,
purple&green, or red,
depending on one's orientation, and the impudence of the inducing resistor
fitted to these very effective anti BS filter helmets
is low, and so high amplitude impudence postings will be shunted
almost fully, thus attenuating jitter from posters uncertain about what
they post.
Price for the basic model is negotiable, but a crateful of Commandaria
St.John might just
get me talking.
Have a good one everyone, and never let the demons within ever get control.
Patrick Turner.
Phil Allison
"Ayn Marx"
** How desperately off topic can you get ?
............. Phil
TT
"Ayn Marx" <mdh...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:1104191596.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Merry Xmas Ayn,
How about making it a even happier New Year and leave off PA. Surely such
an intelligent person as yourself has realised that it is pointless having
communication with PA. I'm just going to have to convince Alan now as well.
He is currently in the mindset I was previously.
Happy New Year TT
Phil Allison
"Dennistraeger"
> Re Seas Mag Drivers,Phil Said -
>
>>** Bull.
>>
>> Lets see you try to prove that absurd claim ( or even define what it
>>means).
>
> Would'nt take anyone long to find out.
>
> Just one quote - Joachim Gerhard Head Engineer at Audio Physic (Germany)
>
> "The 5 " Seas Excell Magnesium Driver has the best sound I have ever
> heard.
> Between 50 & 300kz we measured 10 times less distortion than traditional
> drivers" etc etc
>
** LOL - that load of tripe is supposed to prove WHAT claim relative
to electrostatics ???
( Talk about Dennis the Menace being out of his depth and drowning
! )
> No I have(& never have) absolutely no commercial or financial involvement
> with
> Vaf.
** You have bought Vaf speakers - that is an involvement.
Intend to buy more ??
Expect to get a nice discount maybe ??
> I am lucky enough to have heard many great speakers & systems(i.e. Halcro
> Amps)
> over a long period of time(right back to the early Duntech days) &
> fortunate
> enough to have sufficient finances to build & purchase some great
> components.
** Audiophool fetishist wanker - first class.
............. Phil
Phil Allison
"Alan Rutlidge = congenital, stinking liar and insane HT freak.
>>
>> > Phil Allison
>> >>
>> >> No good telling a BRAIN DEAD TURD like the Rutmaniac anything.
>> >>
>> >> Shame he was not in Phuket this Christmas.
>> >>
>> >> Then God would have dealt out his judgement on the pig.
>> >
>> >
>> > Figures why you aren't there. The Thais would run a racist bigot like
> you out of town......
>> >
>>
>>
>> ** The Thais not are adverse to racists, long as they are spending
>> money
>> there.
>>
>> Plus they welcome Aussie child fuckers with open arms and protect
>> them
>> from the law too.
>>
>>
>> That says all you *ever* need to know about the Thais.
>>
>>
> Phil Allison, you are one seriously SICK puppy.
>
** The one travelling regularly to Thailand is you, Rutlidge.
It is clear from your NG postings that you have no conscience.
Not a good scenario.
............... Phil
Phil Allison
"Alan Rutlidge
>
> "Phil Allison"
>> "Alan Rutlidge = congenital, stinking liar and insane HT freak.
>>
>> No good telling a BRAIN DEAD TURD like the Rutmaniac anything.
>>
>> Shame he was not in Phuket this Christmas.
>>
>> Then God would have dealt out his judgement on the pig.
>>
>
> Phil, by anybody's stretch of the imagination your post above is in
> extremely bad taste if not truly transgressing the bounds of human decency
> in light of the tragic events of 27 December, 2004 in the Bay of Bengal
> and
> the Andaman Sea.
** The comment was to the effect that YOU deserved to drown - not anyone
else.
A just God could have organised that had you been there.
Shame he gets it wrong so often.
.................. Phil
Phil Allison
> Phil Allison wrote:
>>
>>
>> ** You ( whoever you are) are just plain delusional - period.
>>
>
> I'm someone who has some thought and compassion for all those killed by
> the recent tsunumi in Sth East Asia.
** So AM has "thought and compassion" available for corpses ????
But apparently NO sympathy for the great many injured, all the dependants
and grieving relatives of the dead and NONE for the people displaced and
rendered destitute.
Very strange to have "compassion" for corpses.
More likely, AM suffers anxiety about AM's death.
.............. Phil
Ayn Marx
Patrick Turner wrote:
>
> I have invented a tube powered cabbage&brick deflector suit with
solid
> state
> buffererd output stage with a 26dB Ruggedness factor, ( like a
damping
> factor
> only very dry, ) and it allows full view of your assailants even when
they
> are in full
> launch mode of their N&D missiles.
>
> There is a cheap upgrade already available in the form of
> battery powered mosfut coupled mini windscreen wipers for the
> negative feedback capacitive googgles needed while perusing
> the audio groups on the Web.
I've always wanted a battery powered mosfut Pat. I trust you mail them
in plain, brown paper packages?
Patrick Turner
Ayn Marx wrote:
I think your a tiny bit confused; I don't sell battery powered merkins.
( They have come a long way since 1750, and the modern ones have multiple
purposes with many electronic functions fitted as standard, and their
manufacture in chinese
factories even make hardened former peasant girls blush.)
I can assure that one of life's little enjoments might be a trifle
compromised
should one attempt to wear one of my patented devices in an inappropriate
body location and besides, it's not quite the right shape to ensure a
comfortable fit,
and when not noticed by an ardent paramour, could cause some serious late
night
bothers that could hardly be romantic, since the power supply develops high
voltages,
even though battery powered for the deflection and plasmerization of the
BS, even when its of the audio type, and it auto zaps when BS occurs.......
Patrick Turner.
Johnny
Take it easy... You are stating to sound like Phil himself.
I am sure that if you think about it, you can find a thousand better
things to do with your time.
regards,
Johnny.
TT
"Johnny" <joh...@NOSPAM.hotmail.com.> wrote in message
news:4p35t01koh5ruhks4...@4ax.com...
Yep like, bashing your head against a brick wall, arguing with the talking
clock, howling at the Moon, train spotting while at sea etc. All infinitely
more productive ways of time usage that corresponding with Phil.
Anyone actually want to discuss hi-fi now? ;-)
Regards TT
paul packer
>Anyone actually want to discuss hi-fi now? ;-)
>
>Regards TT
Well, I've been discussing it for some time now, but aparently
nobody's interested in veteran Nad amps or $200 Marantz DVD players.
They all want to discuss the dubious wonders of $2000 SACD players and
way over $1000 speakers, because as we all know you only get crap for
less than that. This NG should be re-titled wellheeledaus.hi-fi.
Eddie Oliver
> Well, I've been discussing it for some time now, but aparently
> nobody's interested in veteran Nad amps or $200 Marantz DVD players.
> They all want to discuss the dubious wonders of $2000 SACD players and
> way over $1000 speakers, because as we all know you only get crap for
> less than that. This NG should be re-titled wellheeledaus.hi-fi.
No, it should acknowledge that hi-fi does not require things whose only
discernible "advantages" are that they have snob value.
Alternatively, if anyone could argue by FACT instead of ASSERTION that
these snob-value objects actually improve the listening experience to
any degree discernible above the background, then they should put
forward such an argument - which would be a new experience, since every
other such "argument" recently has been a mixture of prejudice and
statistical ignorance.
TT
"paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:41d2a782...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:36:07 +0800, "TT" <swa...@geo.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> >Anyone actually want to discuss hi-fi now? ;-)
> >
> >Regards TT
>
> Well, I've been discussing it for some time now, but aparently
> nobody's interested in veteran Nad amps
Perhaps they have been discussed before when they were newish :-) I do
apologise if you took offence at my Nad comments at the time but when I
first became interested in hi-fi Nad was very good but then they had some
huge quality control problems and the brand suddenly got a bad name. I for
one still remember this and have never been game to try them.
or $200 Marantz DVD players.
see aus.audio-visual.home-cinema they get regular raves there. Also they
have discussions on "What's better a $52 DVD from Aldi or $62 player from
DSE or Woolies". As Ayn keeps pointing to people this *IS* a hi-fi group
and I would suspect people come here to discuss this. I for one would like
to see discussion on any subject, except the group troll.
> They all want to discuss the dubious wonders of $2000 SACD players and
> way over $1000 speakers, because as we all know you only get crap for
> less than that.
Not necessarily. I have been involved in discussions (in other NGs) about
hi-fi and at what price point it starts and I was told to take my lo-fi
stuff and bugger off. The discussion (from memory) then went on to say
something like "If people keep wanting to turn a hi-fi group into a lo-fi or
mid-fi group perhaps those that wanted to talk about good gear should start
an Ultra-Fi group." BTW I do not advocate this! I think all aspects should
be welcome here including HT stuff.
> This NG should be re-titled wellheeledaus.hi-fi.
Do you also write into Wheels magazine and tell them not to do tests on
Porsches or Ferraris to? I am happy to discuss any aspect of hi-fi at any
price point except my experience with really, really good stuff at a very,
very big prices is very, very limited ;-)
Regards TT
paul packer
>> >Anyone actually want to discuss hi-fi now? ;-)
>> >
>> >Regards TT
>>
>> Well, I've been discussing it for some time now, but aparently
>> nobody's interested in veteran Nad amps
>
>Perhaps they have been discussed before when they were newish :-)
When they were newish they were expensive. That's the point of Ebay.
>I do
>apologise if you took offence at my Nad comments at the time but when I
>first became interested in hi-fi Nad was very good but then they had some
>huge quality control problems and the brand suddenly got a bad name. I for
>one still remember this and have never been game to try them.
I actually posted correspondence from a guy who apparently had some
hand in setting up NAD but became disgruntled and left when NAD began
to manufacture in China. Apparently he took truckloads of 7225pe and
3225pe receivers and amps with him because he's still selling them now
at new prices (they were discontinued in '92) and claiming they sound
better than most stuff today. My own experience with a 7225pe confirms
this, and I was hoping to ellicit some feedback from other in the
group on the subject. However, they were all too busy discussing SACD
and DSotM!
> or $200 Marantz DVD players.
>
>see aus.audio-visual.home-cinema they get regular raves there. Also they
>have discussions on "What's better a $52 DVD from Aldi or $62 player from
>DSE or Woolies". As Ayn keeps pointing to people this *IS* a hi-fi group
>and I would suspect people come here to discuss this.
This sounds more than a touch snobbish in itself, though I'm sure you
don't mean it that way. In any case the Marantz DVD player in
question, though purchased for $200, originally sold for $599--which
brings me to another subject I don't see discussed here that often:
specials. Posters here seem happy to pay top prices for the latest
technology but rarely, at least when I visit the group, communicate
about where items can be bought cheaply. This is clearly not a price
sensitive NG.
>
>> They all want to discuss the dubious wonders of $2000 SACD players and
>> way over $1000 speakers, because as we all know you only get crap for
>> less than that.
>
>Not necessarily. I have been involved in discussions (in other NGs) about
>hi-fi and at what price point it starts and I was told to take my lo-fi
>stuff and bugger off. The discussion (from memory) then went on to say
>something like "If people keep wanting to turn a hi-fi group into a lo-fi or
>mid-fi group perhaps those that wanted to talk about good gear should start
>an Ultra-Fi group." BTW I do not advocate this! I think all aspects should
>be welcome here including HT stuff.
Whatever this group is it's just as well the communists didn't win the
Cold War and hunt them down. That is an idiotic attitude. Obviously
there is a price point below which hi-fi cannot be obtained, but with
numerous run-out specials and Ebay that price is amazingly low. My
Marantz DV4200 ($200) through a Nad 7225pe ($200) and Sennheiser 595
headphones ($300 imported) makes a brilliant noise--certainly well
into "hi-fi" territory. Good bookshelf speakers should not add more
than $600.
>> This NG should be re-titled wellheeledaus.hi-fi.
>
>Do you also write into Wheels magazine and tell them not to do tests on
>Porsches or Ferraris to?
No, but if I read that magazine and they persistently wrote about
nothing but Porsches and Ferraris I would cetainly complain. So I
should hope would the majority of the readership. (I don't read car
magazines becaus they only talk about new cars. I want to read about
the best buys in used cars).
> I am happy to discuss any aspect of hi-fi at any
>price point except my experience with really, really good stuff at a very,
>very big prices is very, very limited ;-)
Good. My faith in you is restored. The communists if they ever stage a
resurgence will happily pass you by. :-)
TT
You obviously missed the posts I made last year when I bought a $98 DSE DVD
player for my family room and was very surprised with the quality of
reproduction. It only lasted 4 months and PAL output died :-( Luckily I
switched to NTSC and it is still going strong. BTW at this price point it
is not worth the inconvenience to take back.
As far as bargains go I bought anyone here pays full retail as it is only a
starting point to work down from and in this age of shop closures and price
cutting there are always some good deals to be had.
Happy New Year, TT
Ayn Marx
TT wrote:
>
> As far as bargains go I bought anyone here pays full retail as it is
only a
> starting point to work down from and in this age of shop closures and
price
> cutting there are always some good deals to be had.
>
Why do you think there are so many shop closures? People like you
looking for good deals maybe? What happens when your 'good deal' breaks
down and the retailer's gone out of business?
Very boring I suspect.
TT
>
> TT wrote:
>
> >
> > As far as bargains go I bought anyone here pays full retail as it is
> only a
> > starting point to work down from and in this age of shop closures and
> price
> > cutting there are always some good deals to be had.
> >
>
> Why do you think there are so many shop closures?
1) Bad Management
2) Bad business practices
3) Bad service
4) Bad staff (inc. management)
5) Bad support
6) Pressure from large discount stores
7) No support from distibuters (read: "Get shafted by")
>People like you
I support my two favourite local shops and always give them first refusal
and *WILL* pay slightly over and discounted price elsewhere for the products
and services I want *because* I get the service I require.
> looking for good deals maybe?
Always ;-) If someone is going to "give" something away and I have whim I
will buy it. I'm not totally stupid, despite common oppinion :-)
> What happens when your 'good deal' breaks down and the retailer's gone out
of business?
Return it to the manufacturer of course. Although sometimes you have search
for a bit to find where the other "White Van" is parked this week :-))
> Very boring I suspect.
>
No not at all. You of all people will know the margins that is in some of
this gear and how quickly the nice new shiny thingamabob becomes yesterdays
"has been". Second hand prices will attest to this and I know some people
that only hunt down this "pre-loved" gear and have very good systems at a
very affordable price.
Please bear in mind here that I am *not* the villain in this and actually
try and help my local dedicated shops stay in business. After all I can't
see Kmart or Woolies or Aldi letting me take stuff home to try or lend me
replacement gear when mine is serviced. I *DO* want my local guys to stay
in business!
Happy New Year, TT
Ayn Marx
However, I don't know what you are getting at when you say. "You of all
people will know the margins that is in some of this gear and how
quickly the nice new shiny thingamabob becomes yesterdays has been".
TT
I am giving you credit for your maturity, your business experience, your
previous dealings with retailers/manufacturers and no doubt having a sneak
peak at the buying prices when the sales droid is on the computer or just
plain asking them their buying price. Basically "life experience" which I
would not expect from a pimply faced youngster or a Sanyo mini-system owner.
Besides buying cheaper reduces the pain of loss at trade in/up time ;-)
So sorry it is nothing more sinister than that I'm afraid.
TT (still no phono stage) :-)
paul packer
>Happy New Year, TT
Happy New Year to you, TT.
Dennistraeger
>
> ** Audiophool fetishist wanker - first class.
>
I really can't understand why you continually "butt in" on other peoples posts
on issues or products you know nothing about and have never heard or measured.
Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
Robert
Why be unkind? It's called autism. A well-known occupational hazard of
toaster repairers.
Phil Allison
"Dennistraeger" = congenital idiot, context snipper and reality avoider
( IOW just another audiophool wanker)
> No I have(& never have) absolutely no commercial or financial involvement
> with Vaf.
> ** You have bought Vaf speakers - that is an involvement.
>
> Intend to buy more ??
>
> Expect to get a nice discount maybe ??
** Hmmmmmm - the SILENCE is deafening .........
> I am lucky enough to have heard many great speakers & systems(i.e. Halcro
> Amps)
> over a long period of time(right back to the early Duntech days) &
> fortunate
> enough to have sufficient finances to build & purchase some great
> components.
>>
>>
>> ** Audiophool fetishist wanker - first class.
>>
>
> I really can't understand why you continually "butt in" on other peoples
> posts
> on issues or products you know nothing about and have never heard or
> measured.
** Dennis wrote in this thread:
" Electrostatic speakers have limitations in other areas including at both
frequency extremes,loudness,dynamics and often a terrible load on the amp, "
** He merely parroted it from PV and elsewhere - and like any parrot
could not justify it.
Also from the same maestro: "Agree Quads did have great midrange, but....
"
** I **really can't understand*** why Dennis continually "butts in" on
issues and products he knows nothing about !!!
When did Quads lose their "great midrange" - can someone please go and
find it for them ???????
ROTFLMAO - Dennis Strangler is a real hoot.
Vaf Stooge and any con man's wet dream.
................. Phil
TT
"Robert" <Z...@Zag.com.it> wrote in message
news:33m9t5F...@individual.net...
Too true :-) If everyone would just ignore Quad boy we would have a much
better group.
Regards TT