Semi Whole-House or Multi-Room audio, but with a high-end twist. Possible?
randogbert
I posted a week or so ago and have since better understood my
limitations.
I want to have one source in my home for audio and home theater (HT).
I want the following:
a) HT setup in family room (location for all componentry)
b) audio in kitchen/dining
c) audio in master bedroom
d) audio outside
The twist is that I am interested in higher-end audio than one might
expect with a whole-house setup - with nice speakers in all locations.
These speakers will vary in maker, size and type and will be selected
for the room or location. For instance, I may have Magnepan MGMC1's in
the kitchen/dining (maybe even a subwoofer) and Axiom bookshelfs in
the master bedroom, etc.
I was thinking a high-quality 12 channel amp to power everything with
5 channels going to the HT and 6 others going to the other 3 pairs.
These would only require a total of 2 zones (HT for one, audio for the
second) from a nice preamp. Another thought is to use a 5-channel A/V
receiver for the HT and another amp for the other areas. I originally
considered a 7 channel amp using 5 of those for the HT and the other 2
from the 2nd zone outputs into a speaker selection (switching) box for
the other 3 pairs since using them all at once isn't a primary
requirement.
Unfortunately, I can't find any good info on how good these amps are
compared to higher end 2-channel amps (use B&K for comparison) or
whether their high prices are based on the fact they are normally
considered commercial products. I've been looking at the Niles SI-1260
specifically. In fact, I have real concerns that the real different
requirements based on the speakers for each room will require the
ability to adjust EQ settings for each pair separately yet it doesn't
appear that these multi-channel amps have that flexibility. In
speaking with a tech at Niles, this is an unusual request and not
something they provide for (for a $2500 amp!). This is odd to me. I
was originally thinking that a multi-channel amp would allow me the
most flexibility from all accounts.
Rather than make this into a book, I'll stop here to see what comments
I get, if any.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and any response you may
have.
Randy in Northern California.
Robert Morein
Even the preamp of a home theater receiver tends to have nonflat response.
There are differences between amplifiers as well.
A 12 channel amp will have many of the limitations of amplfiers found in
receivers.
B&K amplifiers have a soft sound, and will work well with some speakers, but
not others.
Driving speakers with widely different characteristics with a single type of
amplifier, will not result in optimal sound.```
I wouldn't go so far as to say "you get what you pay for", but you have to
be cunning.
Rather than take advice wholesale from people with different ears, I suggest
building a two channel system first. When you finally get it to sound right,
you'll have an inhouse standard for comparison.
"randogbert" <rando...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com...
Joseph Oberlander
> Hello,
>
> I posted a week or so ago and have since better understood my
> limitations.
>
> I want to have one source in my home for audio and home theater (HT).
> I want the following:
>
> a) HT setup in family room (location for all componentry)
> b) audio in kitchen/dining
> c) audio in master bedroom
> d) audio outside
Denon's higher-end amplifiers have a multi-room feature. This takes
care of the master bedroom/AV system and kitchen/dining(aux). Or
the reverse. It uses two of the rear channels to drive the other
room. You can select multiple inputs and options.
Your only other option is to get a dedicated system for each room.
That means a master amplifier and a line-level splitter. Denon
makes these as do others, all the way up to McIntosh.
You then get a 50wpc 4ohm amplifier or pair of small monoblocks for
each room. Hide these where you can.
I personally like Denon's system as it has remote transmiters and
controls for each room. Your main amplifier sends the line-level signal
to the splitter. Then it goes to each room, which has its own remote.
You will need a remote amplifier in each room, but that's simple. I would
suggest the main system and outside be together. Outside only needs 2
channels anyways, and they can be 8 ohm ones at that. Mirage makes the best
outdoor speakers that I know of, BTW.
The DRA 685 will do all tree rooms in fact - the kitchen will need a seperate
amplifier, but that's easy to do. You can also add a supplimentary amp for
the main room. $499 plus some boxes and remotes.
Erik Squires
InnerSound amplifier for them, all by themselves. At least the ESL
amplifier, if not a couple of their monoblocks if you really were serious
about high end sound.
In general, current capacity seems to go down as you add channels, due to
increasing sizes of transformers and storage capacitors required, so I
personally beleive there's usually a trade off. The maximum you can get
off a house hold outlet is 1500 Watts. Divide by two for the usual
inneficiencies in a class A/B amplifier, and you have 700 Watts. Divide
this by twelve... and you have less than 70 watts per channel. If this is
all you want, and I can see that for the outside and casual listening, then
you're golden. But for the home theater and Magnepans, you'll really need
more.
If you have the space, I'd buy amplifiers with no more than 2 channels /
unit. Also, consider the idle power and just how much electrical power
you're going to need for all these outlets. You may need an extra circuit
run.
As for equalization, exactly what are you planning on equalizing, and how
are you going to calibrate it?
Regards,
Erik
"randogbert" <rando...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com...
Arny Krueger
news:FBWdnZ92IML...@comcast.com
> You can't get a really good amp in a receiver.
But you can get one that will sound good.
> Even the preamp of a home theater receiver tends to have nonflat
> response.
OK, so the response might be 0.5 dB down at 20 KHz. The audible
significance of this is???
>There are differences between amplifiers as well.
Yes, but what do they mean in terms of sound quality?
> A 12 channel amp will have many of the limitations of amplifiers
> found in receivers.
All generalities are false.
> B&K amplifiers have a soft sound, and will work well with some
> speakers, but not others.
Had I not listened to B&K amps, I might almost believe this.
> Driving speakers with widely different characteristics with a
> single type of amplifier, will not result in optimal sound.
Presuming that amplifiers are equalizers, which the good ones aren't.
> I wouldn't go so far as to say "you get what you pay for", but
> you have to be cunning.
As far as you've gone thusfar Morien, you might as well add any other
unfounded generalities that might fly into your head.
> Rather than take advice wholesale from people with different
> ears, I suggest building a two channel system first. When you
> finally get it to sound right, you'll have an inhouse standard
> for comparison.
Now, that might not be a bad idea. Start out simple and work up into
multichannel, which is more complex.
Chuck Y
send to each room. You'd want different equalizations for each room,
technically. At LEAST you want local volume control.
And depending on the room, the quality of amp can be compromised.
You won't have lots of volume in the kitchen, and it's all reflective
surfaces anyway. The bedroom (mine at least) is very absorbant - big
bed and a rug that sucks up a lot of the high and mid.
My living room is very bright sounding (glass doors, hardwood floor, not
so much cushioned furniture, etc).
Can the 12 channel amps handle volumes/room? PreIn/Out per room? (I've
got a Stereo Pro 31band/channel EQ in my main room because I owned it
before and occasionally will slide in a compressor/limiter for the
occasionally annoying TV/Movie that had excessive ranges (Jurassic Park
jumps to mind with 65db talking and 100db monster roars).
randogbert
much info about the logistics of such a system rather than name
dropping at this point (which I was guilty of in my previous post just
to give an idea of the quality of sound I'm shooting for: sort-of
entry-level high end or mid/high, if you will). Your responses are
exactly what I need to give me the lessons I need to avoid a costly
mistake.
Once I feel I understand the logistics, I'll start matching up the
componentry under real conditions as was suggested... very good
advice. It starting to appear that a do-all amp isn't going to cut it
and I like the idea of slave amps (if that's the right terminology)
dedicated for each vastly different speaker arrangement. I really need
to educate myself on exactly how that would work now...
"Erik Squires" <erik_s...@hotFILTERmail.com> wrote in message news:<3e0cd832$1...@nopics.sjc>...
> As for equalization, exactly what are you planning on equalizing, and how
> are you going to calibrate it?
I'm actually referring to simple EQ like bass and treble settings for
each room and I don't think there are any pre-amps out there that
handle settings for more than ~7 channels at this time... right? So
how do I go about making adjustments like that for multiple rooms
driven by one master?
Sorry if I sound somewhat ignorant. Today I am. Next week hopefully
less so! :)
Thanks again,
Randy
Robert Morein
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9W5P9.39$FP1.6...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:FBWdnZ92IML...@comcast.com
>
> > You can't get a really good amp in a receiver.
>
> But you can get one that will sound good.
>
> > Even the preamp of a home theater receiver tends to have nonflat
> > response.
>
> OK, so the response might be 0.5 dB down at 20 KHz. The audible
> significance of this is???
>
> >There are differences between amplifiers as well.
>
> Yes, but what do they mean in terms of sound quality?
>
A dear friend of mine, who reintroduced me to this hobby, has quite a
few setups. Every few months we get together to evaluate a new piece of
gear he has, and at longer intervals, I lug a couple of items from my
amplifier collection over for comparison with his most recent experiments. I
usually bring a Hafler XL-600 or an Acoustat TNT-200.
We USUALLY find audible differences, sometimes large, sometimes small.
We usually have strong preferences as to which amplifier we prefer, and it
typically varies, depending upon whether the speaker has a hard dome or soft
dome tweeter.
About ten days ago, we compared a Yamaha DSP-A1 to a Hafler SE-240, and,
in a separate comparison, a Hafler XL-600 to a Coda.
Our preferences were unanimous and strong: we preferred the SE-240, as
well as another basic amp, to the DSP-A1, and the XL-600 to the Coda. The
results of both these comparisons were economically and egonometrically
inconvenient to my friend, who will now change his setups as a result.
To continue this discussion, I prefer to replace the word "good" with
"perfect", because "perfect" has mathematical meaning, as in f(s) = 1, where
f is the transfer function.
I would agree with a position which states "All perfect amplifiers sound
the same." However, as there is no perfect amplifier, they may or may not be
distinguishable or preferable. As there is no perfect speaker, faults of
amplifiers and speakers may cancel or reinforce to produce a particular
psychoacoustic effect.
There are many individuals, both in print and on this newsgroup, who
propagate various beliefs as the absolute truth. I am not aware of any who
have both published in peer reviewed journals, and had their methods, IN ALL
THEIR DETAIL, NOT GENERAL PROPOSITION, adopted as standard methods of
investigation for audio. If you will consider the above statement for a
moment, it acknowledges that some of your techniques may be standard
practice, but have not been accepted in ensemble as a complete experimental
procedure by researchers in the field of high fidelity amplification.
It may be that to a large percentage of the population, a receiver
will produce adequate sound. Of course, as I run the danger of falling into
the trap of proclaiming infallibility, the roadmap which I propose for
Randogbert has one advantage: If he follows it, he can reach his own
conclusions, as they apply to his ears. A personal conclusion on this
subject is far more valuable to him than an academic one.
I had a B&K amplifier and discarded it. I found the amp to be dark,
soft, and unrevealing.
Erik Squires
ease of use are going to be.
I looked at the Niles web site. I suggest their 12 channel Preamplifier
(not the receiver) as it has the tone controls you are looking for. Add to
that your choices of external amplifiers, and you'll pretty much get the
whole house wired.
Also, if you're going to go that route, I'd keep the home theater system as
separate as possible. Keep it simple, and in it's own space. This will
give you maximum flexibility.
Another possibility is a combination. Start with something like the Lexicon
MC-12 which gives you 3 zones, you can use one zone for your whole house,
and have 2 A/V zones. This way you can have 2 rooms with sound and movie
capability. It depends on wether you wish to have many multiple areas which
can be independently selected, or wether you want 1 source going to your
entire house.
Take care,
ERik
"randogbert" <rando...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com...
Erik Squires
have an eq loop, but it does have bass/treble controls per room it seems.
They also make a separate 12 channel preamp that gives whole house control,
separate sources/control per room, etc. This makes a better option
depending on how serious you wish to EQ each room.
It seems like a bit of overkill for my tastes.
I have the Behringer DSP EQ, built in limiter, in addition to Midi control.
Very sweet unit, if I had the money I'd buy 3 for my home theater.
Regards,
Erik
"Chuck Y" <attne...@2002.snew.com> wrote in message
news:6u7P9.138866$qF3.10560@sccrnsc04...
Robert Morein
nospa...@nospam.com wrote on 12/28/02 10:57:
> A dear friend of mine, who reintroduced me to this hobby, has quite a
> few setups
I'm sorry Arnie, I lied again. I have NO friends since my mum died. And
even the last few years SHE hated me. Hated I was suing Drexel Uni. Hated
I never could finish my schooling. Hated I still lived in my 3x4 bedroom
upstairs in her house Hated she still had to do my laundry, even though I
wear the same clothes for weeks on end.
I'm a liar. I admit it.
Bob
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
This is some of the best gobbledygook that I have read in a long
while.
Keep up the good, if not perfect, work.
BTW, do you actually talk like this?
Robert Morein
"sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
news:3e0d4...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> This is some of the best gobbledygook that I have read in a long
> while.
> Keep up the good, if not perfect, work.
>
> BTW, do you actually talk like this?
>
Arny is an advocate of an experimental protocol. Typically, discussions
about protocols are carried in professional journals, symposiums, and so
forth. Experimental protocols are justified by formal and mathematical
reasoning. I'm using the customary language for the purpose.
A lot of people have made ad homineum attacks on Arny. Justified or not, I
won't go there.
Robert Morein
I have never personally experienced another individual as Evil as Brian L.
McCarty. Perhaps his corpulent body is inhabited by a dark power.
Keywords: unclean Brian L. McCarty, unclean, WorldJazz, Enron, K1 Ventures,
Singapore, Coral Sea Studios, Cairns, Australia
The Picture Behind the Mask:
http://www.studentsandthelaw.org/McCarty/Brian.jpg
The Voice Behind the Curtain:
Arny Krueger
Morien, your listening evaluations no doubt failed to be
level-matched, time-synchronized, and/or blind. End of story!
If I do listening tests that aren't level-matched, time-synchronized,
and blind I can *hear* differences between any two pieces of audio
gear that have ever existed or will ever exist, even if they are
exactly identical.
Morien, by now you should know this line, chapter and verse. How many
times does this have to be explained to you before you will
understand what it means?
Arny Krueger
dnZ9Q357q...@comcast.com
> "sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
> news:3e0d4...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>>
>> This is some of the best gobbledygook that I have read in a long
>> while.
>> Keep up the good, if not perfect, work.
>>
>> BTW, do you actually talk like this?
>>
> Not in person, but my argument with Arny hinges on very fine
> distinctions.
No, this is a discussion about fairly gross differences.
> Arny is an advocate of an experimental protocol.
No, I am an advocate of using appropriate experimental protocols for
the purpose at hand.
> Typically, discussions about protocols are carried in
> professional journals, symposiums, and so forth. Experimental
> protocols are justified by formal and mathematical reasoning.
In the case of the need for listening tests that are blind,
level-matched, and time-synchronized it really doesn't take a lot of
formal and/or mathematical reasoning.
The simple fact is that if a listening test is not level-matched,
time-synchronized AND blind, just about anybody can *hear*
differences between any two pieces of audio gear that have ever
existed or will ever exist - even if they are absolutely identical.
How simple does it have to be?
> I'm using the customary language for the purpose.
No Morien, you are just posturing the usual postures that we see from
people who for some odd reason have missed something that is really
quite obvious.
> A lot of people have made ad hominem attacks on Arny. Justified
> or not, I won't go there.
Good for you! But, it doesn't help the abject naiveté and
incorrectness of your purported listening tests.
Robert Morein
> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:gX-
> dnZ9Q357q...@comcast.com
> > "sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
> > news:3e0d4...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> time-synchronized AND blind, just about anybody can *hear*
> differences between any two pieces of audio gear that have ever
> existed or will ever exist - even if they are absolutely identical.
> How simple does it have to be?
>
I differ with you not on the usefulness of blind comparisons, but on the
finer points of your protocol. Put simply, I feel you take a good idea and
implement it badly.
> > I'm using the customary language for the purpose.
>
I'm using the customary language for the purpose.
Arny, you have a good idea.
You're a bad scientist.
> No Morien, you are just posturing the usual postures that we see from
> people who for some odd reason have missed something that is really
> quite obvious.
>
> > A lot of people have made ad hominem attacks on Arny. Justified
> > or not, I won't go there.
>
> Good for you! But, it doesn't help the abject naiveté and
> incorrectness of your purported listening tests.
>
Regardless of whether my listening tests are valid, even for personal use,
my errors cannot validate your protocol. That has to be done by
appropriately credentialed third parties who have examined your protocol in
exquisite detail, and permitted you to publish in refereed journals. Failing
that, there has to be some evidence of use of your protocols by the hifi
industry at large.
As with any other individual who promotes a specific protocol, the
validation of that protocol cannot come from the experimenter himself.
You can't prove yourself right by proving me wrong.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:q%cP9.146$xq4.16...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:gX-
>> dnZ9Q357q...@comcast.com
>>> "sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
>>> news:3e0d4...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>> The simple fact is that if a listening test is not level-matched,
>> time-synchronized AND blind, just about anybody can *hear*
>> differences between any two pieces of audio gear that have ever
>> existed or will ever exist - even if they are absolutely
>> identical. How simple does it have to be?
>> What you say can happen. In fact, it is quite common.
Now, Morien do you have the personal insight to realize that you are
part of that oh-so-common problem?
> I differ with you not on the usefulness of blind comparisons, but
> on the finer points of your protocol. Put simply, I feel you take
> a good idea and implement it badly.
Simply put Morien, nothing's perfect but my "implement(ed) badly"
protocol is about 24 years (more or less) ahead of where you are
right now.
>>> I'm using the customary language for the purpose.
>> I'm using the customary language for the purpose.
> Arny, you have a good idea.
> You're a bad scientist.
That's why my science shows up in refereed scientific papers - its so
bad!
LOL!
>> No Morien, you are just posturing the usual postures that we see
>> from people who for some odd reason have missed something that
>> is really quite obvious.
>>> A lot of people have made ad hominem attacks on Arny. Justified
>>> or not, I won't go there.
>> Good for you! But, it doesn't help the abject naiveté and
>> incorrectness of your purported listening tests.
> Regardless of whether my listening tests are valid, even for
> personal use, my errors cannot validate your protocol.
Here's a radical idea, Morien. Stop making the errors!
> That has
> to be done by appropriately credentialed third parties who have
> examined your protocol in exquisite detail, and permitted you to
> publish in refereed journals.
The protocols I've developed and others developed that I use are
published in refereed journals. I've cited them many times.
Here's a partial list:
Bailar, John C. III, Mosteller, Frederick, "Guidelines for
Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical Journals", Annals of
Internal Medicine, 108:266-273, (1988).
Buchlein, R., "The Audibility of Frequency Response Irregularities"
(1962), reprinted in English in Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol. 29, pp. 126-131 (1981)
Burstein, Herman, "Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample
Size in ABX Testing", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.
36, p. 879 (1988)
Burstein, Herman, "Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for
Listening Tests", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 37,
p. 363 (1989)
Clark, D. L., "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol.33 No.9, pp.740-1
(September 1985)
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a
Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338.
Diamond, George A., Forrester, James S., "Clinical Trials and
Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal", Annals of
Internal Medicine, 98:385-394, (1983).
Frick, Robert, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis", Memory and Cognition,
Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 23(1), 132-138, (1995).
Gabrielsonn and Sjogren, "Preceived Sound Quality of Sound
Reproducing Systems", Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
Vol 65, pp 1019-1033 (1979 April)
Gabrielsonn, "Dimension Analyses of Perceived Sound Quality of Sound
Reproducing Systems", Scand. J. Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 159-169
(1979)
Lipschitz, Stanley P., and Van der kooy, John, "The Great Debate:
Subjective Evaluation", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Vol. 29 No. 7/8, Jul/Aug 1981, pp. 482-491.
Olive, Sean E., et al, "The Perception of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 40, p.
1038 (Dec 1992)
Olive, Sean E., Schuck, Peter L., Ryan, James G., Sally, Sharon L.,
Bonneville, Marc E., "The Detection Thresholds of Resonances at Low
Frequencies", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 45, p.
116-128, (March 1997)
Simon, Richard, "Confidence Intervals for Reporting Results of
Clinical Trials", Annals of Internal Medicine, 105:429-435, (1986).
Toole, Floyd E., "Listening Tests - Turning Opinion Into Fact",
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30, No. 6, June 1982,
pp. 431-445.
Toole, Floyd E., "The Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound
Quality & Listener Performance", Journal of the Audio Engineering
Society, Vol. 33, pp. 2-32 (1985 Jan/Feb)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Detection of Reflections in
Typical Rooms", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 39,
pp. 539-553 (1989 July/Aug)
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "Hearing is Believing vs.
Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests, and Other Interesting
Things", 97th AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), [3893
(H-5], 20 pages.
Toole, Floyd E., and Olive, Sean E., "The Modification of Timbre By
Resonances: Perception & Measurement", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol 36, pp. 122-142 (1988 March).
Warren, Richard M., "Auditory Illusions and their Relation to
Mechanisms Enhancing Accuracy of Perception", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 31 No. 9 (1983 September).
> Failing that, there has to be some
> evidence of use of your protocols by the hifi industry at large.
See the above.
> As with any other individual who promotes a specific protocol, the
> validation of that protocol cannot come from the experimenter
> himself.
See the above
> You can't prove yourself right by proving me wrong.
As I've just shown, others have done it for me!
Robert Morein
> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:jU6dnUmNgc_...@comcast.com
>
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:q%cP9.146$xq4.16...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:gX-
> >> dnZ9Q357q...@comcast.com
>
> >>> "sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
> >>> news:3e0d4...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> >> The simple fact is that if a listening test is not level-matched,
> >> time-synchronized AND blind, just about anybody can *hear*
> >> differences between any two pieces of audio gear that have ever
> >> existed or will ever exist - even if they are absolutely
> >> identical. How simple does it have to be?
>
> >> What you say can happen. In fact, it is quite common.
>
> Now, Morien do you have the personal insight to realize that you are
> part of that oh-so-common problem?
>
> > I differ with you not on the usefulness of blind comparisons, but
> > on the finer points of your protocol. Put simply, I feel you take
> > a good idea and implement it badly.
>
> Simply put Morien, nothing's perfect but my "implement(ed) badly"
> protocol is about 24 years (more or less) ahead of where you are
> right now.
>
Your publication list is not valueless.
I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
However, there is no evidence that you string the individual pieces together
in a coherent fashion.
It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:DQdP9.161$VA4.17...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:jU6dnUmNgc_...@comcast.com
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:q%cP9.146$xq4.16...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gX- dnZ9Q357q...@comcast.com
>>
>>>>> "sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
>>>>> news:3e0d4...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>>
>>>> The simple fact is that if a listening test is not level-
>>>> *hear* differences between any two pieces of audio gear that
>>>> have ever existed or will ever exist - even if they are
>>>> absolutely identical. How simple does it have to be?
>>>> What you say can happen. In fact, it is quite common.
>>
>> Now, Morien do you have the personal insight to realize that you
>> are part of that oh-so-common problem?
>>
>>> I differ with you not on the usefulness of blind comparisons,
>>> but on the finer points of your protocol. Put simply, I feel
>>> you take a good idea and implement it badly.
>> Simply put Morien, nothing's perfect but my "implement(ed) badly"
>> protocol is about 24 years (more or less) ahead of where you are
>> right now.
>> No, it's not. Our purposes are disjoint.
I'm interested in discovering truth and you are apparently into
something else.
> Your publication list is not valueless.
Wow, what a grandiose statement. How many of those papers have you
read, Moerien? I'm guessing the number is real close to zero.
> I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
That's a nice change of pace. But you will get back off track quickly
enough, Morien.
> However, there is no evidence that you string the individual
> pieces together in a coherent fashion.
Horsefeathers.
It's such a simple idea.
You just match the levels,
synchronize the music in the time domain,
and oblige the listener to make his judgments by just listening.
How can such a simple thing be anything but coherent?
> It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
Prove it.
BTW, what the hell do you call what you do, Morien? It's not even bad
science, it's like no science at all. But yet you base technical
judgments, grandiose claims, and purchase decisions on it. Why?
Robert Morein
Logically, the question of whether your theories are correct should be
divorced from the question of whether I am wrong. As I said before, you
can't prove you're right by proving me wrong.
You are an obviously talented engineer who in my opinion, simply allows
personal bias to contaminate his work. If I were to weigh your work, my
guess is I'd find 80% of it to be of good quality. Unfortunately, in the
remainder, you allow bias to intrude, and the quality is not there.
It's tragic, because the result is a waste of your obvious talent.
I think the best path would be for you to soften your strident tone, and
recruit some persons with standing in the industry to jointly conduct
experiments with you. Ideally, these should not be individuals who
absolutely agree with you, but appear to be open-minded. You should go into
this with the the willingness change your beliefs, if the results justify
it.
In terms of the number of logical steps which you apply to reach your
conclusion, you are not so far from the truth. But in my opinion, those
steps which are in question are so crucial that the outcome is considerably
changed.
I once tried to get you together with John Atkinson, and learned from both
of you that there are irreconciable differences. But there are many other
excelllent candidates.
Why don't you try putting out a feeler to Sidney Harmon? Explain what you
want to do, see if there's anyone working in his organization who would want
to participate. Another good guy you could work with is Jim Johnston, who I
believe is no longer at Lucent.
One should not belong to an idea -- it's better if the idea belongs to you.
Arny Krueger
> I want to have one source in my home for audio and home theater
> (HT). I want the following:
>
> a) HT setup in family room (location for all componentry)
> b) audio in kitchen/dining
> c) audio in master bedroom
> d) audio outside
> The twist is that I am interested in higher-end audio than one
> might expect with a whole-house setup - with nice speakers in all
> locations. These speakers will vary in maker, size and type and
> will be selected for the room or location. For instance, I may
> have Magnepan MGMC1's in the kitchen/dining (maybe even a
> subwoofer) and Axiom bookshelfs in the master bedroom, etc.
Why not just put independent audio systems in all the rooms?
> I was thinking a high-quality 12 channel amp to power everything
> with 5 channels going to the HT and 6 others going to the other 3
> pairs. These would only require a total of 2 zones (HT for one,
> audio for the second) from a nice preamp. Another thought is to
> use a 5-channel A/V receiver for the HT and another amp for the
> other areas. I originally considered a 7 channel amp using 5 of
> those for the HT and the other 2 from the 2nd zone outputs into a
> speaker selection (switching) box for the other 3 pairs since
> using them all at once isn't a primary requirement.
Why not just put independent audio systems in all the rooms? If you
want a central music library, why not use a central file server with
small PCs as audio servers, or the MP3 network appliances sold for
the purpose. We're talking $300-600 per station here.
> Unfortunately, I can't find any good info on how good these amps
> are compared to higher end 2-channel amps (use B&K for
> comparison) or whether their high prices are based on the fact
> they are normally considered commercial products.
If you want a good example of a truly commercial multichannel
amplifier, consider the Rane MA-6. 100 wpc x 6. List List Price:
$1649.00 Street Price: $1249.00 Compare this to the B&K 125.7, a
slightly beefier amp with one more channel. List price $1795 Street
price $1495. These prices may seem high until you realize what you
are getting - at least 3 each 100 to 125 wpc power amps at a price of
about $400-500 each. IME $400-500 the going price for better-quality
2-channel power amps in the 100-125 wpc power category. I've got
several of 'em.
It's begs the question - why not just buy 3 100-125 wpc power amps,
say some comparable Haflers. Well, if space is an issue...
It also begs the question that if what you want is a bunch of
2-channel systems, why not trot down to Best Buy or Circuit City and
pick up some what Sony or Onkyo 100 wpc receivers for under $200 a
piece. That HT system would be 5.1, but again you can get 100 wpc
5.1 receivers for under $200 a piece. Where do these ultra-low prices
come from? Very specific, kinda inflexible solutions from the mass
market.
Could you hear the difference between any of these alternatives in a
DBT? I doubt it. What you are buying is flexibility and packaging.
You are also buying the ability to easily introduce advanced concepts
like relatively precise equalization. You also won't have to purchase
a whole receiver electronics package if you decide to upgrade the
number of channels in that HT system, for example. But, the economics
for a simple solution are pretty compelling.
> I've been
> looking at the Niles SI-1260 specifically. In fact, I have real
> concerns that the real different requirements based on the
> speakers for each room will require the ability to adjust EQ
> settings for each pair separately yet it doesn't appear that
> these multi-channel amps have that flexibility. In speaking with
> a tech at Niles, this is an unusual request and not something
> they provide for (for a $2500 amp!). This is odd to me. I was
> originally thinking that a multi-channel amp would allow me the
> most flexibility from all accounts.
Well, if you are talking Commercial audio, the logical complement for
the Rane MA-6 would be a trio of Rane ME-60s or GE-60s or a sextet of
Rane PE-15s. The ME-60s would run you about $550, the GE-60s about
$650 each, while in comparison pairs of PE-15s would run you $600.
I've got several of 'em.
Robert Morein
> "randogbert" <rando...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com
> > Hello,
>
>
> the Rane MA-6 would be a trio of Rane ME-60s or GE-60s or a sextet of
> Rane PE-15s. The ME-60s would run you about $550, the GE-60s about
> $650 each, while in comparison pairs of PE-15s would run you $600.
> I've got several of 'em.
>
compare them to amplifiers targeted to audiophile market. I have heard
similar commercial amps, and the didn't sound particularly good to my ears.
Let your ears be the judge.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:f6eP9.166$vD4.17...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:WpydndxkRLG...@comcast.com
>> It's such a simple idea.
>> You just match the levels,
>> synchronize the music in the time domain,
>> and oblige the listener to make his judgments by just listening.
>> How can such a simple thing be anything but coherent?
>>> It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
>> Prove it.
>> BTW, what the hell do you call what you do, Morien? It's not
>> even bad science, it's like no science at all. But yet you base
>> technical judgments, grandiose claims, and purchase decisions on
>> it. Why?
> You have a legitimate question. I'd prefer to address it at
> another time. Logically, the question of whether your theories
> are correct should be divorced from the question of whether I am
> wrong. As I said before, you can't prove you're right by proving
> me wrong.
No, but I can and have proven that you're wrong by proving that I'm
right. I don't think you really understand how right I am. The right
that I am is far bigger than I am, which is just fine.
> You are an obviously talented engineer who in my opinion, simply
> allows personal bias to contaminate his work.
A very ironic statement given that the core of my work is
bias-controlled listening tests. Yes, I've got a bias - against bias.
>If I were to weigh
> your work, my guess is I'd find 80% of it to be of good quality.
> Unfortunately, in the remainder, you allow bias to intrude, and
> the quality is not there.
What you don't and can't know until you've been there Morien, is what
it means to have done bias-controlled listening tests for say 20+
years. Much of the world of audio still looks pretty strange when you
know what's bias and what's real.
> It's tragic, because the result is a waste of your obvious talent.
I've paid a price, but I've also received substantial personal
benefits.
> I think the best path would be for you to soften your strident
> tone, and recruit some persons with standing in the industry to
> jointly conduct experiments with you.
Been there done that. Maybe you want to visit www.pcabx.com? If you
read and understand just the home page, and realize what the cosmic
meaning of the FACTS there are, you might think differently.
What's going on at PCABX is that for the past 3+ years literally
10,000's of people have been introduced to bias-controlled listening
tests by means of personal experience. I watch the comparators get
downloaded and I watch the test files get downloaded and I just
marvel that there is still so much interest and activity.
Obviously, www.pcabx.com is over a lot of people's heads, but both
the basic technique and the basic concept are catching on with the
general public, still a bit slowly. I stopped doing much development
of this site over a year ago because I realized how far ahead it was
of its audience. One of these days I may have to start seriously
developing it again... Meanwhile I'm, waiting for most of the
consumer world to catch up.
>Ideally, these should not
> be individuals who absolutely agree with you, but appear to be
> open-minded. You should go into this with the willingness
> change your beliefs, if the results justify it.
Morien you really don't understand what is going on, and how long it
has been going on. You obviously have zero familiarity with the
literature I cited which is only a fraction of what I could cite.
Morien, you don't seem to appreciate that there are entire
billion-dollar corporations, specific examples Ford and Harman
(please note the spelling of Harman), where the gold standard for all
important decisions involving listening, is level-matched,
time-synched DBTs.
Morien, you don't understand that I'm not about results, I'm about
methodologies, and the plural is real and meaningful.
> In terms of the number of logical steps which you apply to reach
> your conclusion, you are not so far from the truth. But in my
> opinion, those steps which are in question are so crucial that
> the outcome is considerably changed.
This would be the old golden ear duck and hide. It goes something
like this: "DBTs are great in their place which is not for me. I'm
too good for them".
> I once tried to get you together with John Atkinson, and learned
> from both of you that there are irreconciable differences.
For one thing Atkinson is a talented liar and artful deceiver who has
made his personal fortune by deceiving people about audio. In
contrast I'm a mediocre expositor of the truth who has put thousands
of people back on the path to the truth. It's dirty work but someone
had to do it.
>But there are many other excellent candidates.
Things have progressed well beyond that. You really need to catch up,
Morien.
> Why don't you try putting out a feeler to Sidney Harman? Explain
> what you want to do, see if there's anyone working in his
> organization who would want to participate.
That happened over the past 10-20 years. The guys who got to Sidney
Harman were Toole and Olive. The deed is done, Harman is on board.
You really ought to check the references I gave you - the Toole and
Olive references are a thumbnail sketch of the DBT-ization of Harman.
>Another good guy you
> could work with is Jim Johnston, who I believe is no longer at
> Lucent.
Johnson is long gone from AT&T labs which is not the same as Lucent.
I believe he's gone underground. I he's believe working Usenet under
an alias.
> One should not belong to an idea -- it's better if the idea
> belongs to you.
This idea is way to big to belong to one person, and it has been for
well over a decade. It's well beyond belonging to even a small group
of people. Morien, you really need to catch up if you are going to
talk intelligently about this topic. A lot has happened in the past
five or so years.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:xKeP9.172$EV4.18...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>> Well, if you are talking Commercial audio, the logical
>> complement for the Rane MA-6 would be a trio of Rane ME-60s or
>> GE-60s or a sextet of Rane PE-15s. The ME-60s would run you
>> about $550, the GE-60s about $650 each, while in comparison
>> pairs of PE-15s would run you $600. I've got several of 'em.
> And while I have not heard those particular amps, I strongly
> recommend you compare them to amplifiers targeted to audiophile
> market.
The biggest difference is that the Rane gear has balanced I/O which
makes it easier to hook up and have a low-noise system.
>I have heard similar commercial amps, and the didn't
> sound particularly good to my ears.
Four words: Not a blind test.
> Let your ears be the judge.
To do that you'd have to do DBTs Morien, and its obvious that you
haven't.
I own the "ears be the judge" concession at RAO. Long, sad history
has shown that my critics can't hear differences worth squat unless
they peek.
If the listening evaluation is not blind, is not level-matched,
and/or is not time-synched I can reliably perceive a difference
between any two audio components that have ever been made or will
ever be made, no matter how identical they are. Prove me wrong!
;-)
Robert Morein
> "Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:RqGdnVPnjtk...@comcast.com
>
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:xKeP9.172$EV4.18...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> >> Well, if you are talking Commercial audio, the logical
> >> complement for the Rane MA-6 would be a trio of Rane ME-60s or
> >> GE-60s or a sextet of Rane PE-15s. The ME-60s would run you
> >> about $550, the GE-60s about $650 each, while in comparison
> >> pairs of PE-15s would run you $600. I've got several of 'em.
>
> > And while I have not heard those particular amps, I strongly
> > recommend you compare them to amplifiers targeted to audiophile
> > market.
>
> The biggest difference is that the Rane gear has balanced I/O which
> makes it easier to hook up and have a low-noise system.
>
> >I have heard similar commercial amps, and the didn't
> > sound particularly good to my ears.
>
> Four words: Not a blind test.
>
> > Let your ears be the judge.
>
> To do that you'd have to do DBTs Morien, and its obvious that you
> haven't.
I'm not telling randogbert to believe me, or my ears.
I'm telling him to ignore you, and trust his ears.
But, of course,
*the*-*IDEA*-*IS*-*MUCH*-*BIGGER*-THAN*-*ARNY*-*KRUEGER*-*OR*-*ANY*-*OF*-US*
As I said, I think the idea of DBT has merit. Perhaps I should say it has
great merit.
However, you do it wrong, you do it badly, and you are a
***BAD***SCIENTIST***.
I'll just mention, as an aside, that my opinion of you as a person is that
you are a fairly decent guy, maybe a bit too abrasive. I don't hold with the
guys of r.a.o. who make obscene and hurtful posts. But I won't back off my
assertion that you are a BAD SCIENTIST. This is an observation of you in
your professional capacity only. Your personality does not lend itself to
objectivity and self reflection.
dave weil
wrote:
>I'm a mediocre expositor
Well, yes...
Jezmund Von Brundt
in my house and the sound quality is unsurpassed. It uses RJ-45 cable
to connect the rooms together and uses this cable in a balanced-audio
method to prevent signal loss. I would recomend highly against having
one centralized amp and extremely long runs of speaker cable, this
will cause a serious degradation in sound and can cause instability in
the amp if the cables are too long. In a balanced system the remote
rooms sound just as good as the main room. You can find info on the
web by searching on Knekt. Here is the company info in the system
http://www.linn.co.uk/spec_sound/knekt.cfm I have a main Aktiv system
in the main room, this is hooked up to a RCU/Linedriver and it is
connected to the other rooms via Cat-6 lucent Systemax cabling. I am
using Classik-K's for amplification in all the other rooms except for
one. The Classik-K a compact all in one secondary room controller, it
has RJ-45 inputs on the back to connect directly to the main system
with no additional hardware, it also provides 75 watts of
amplification, a CD player, 3 inputs for additional sources, a AM/FM
tuner and a Clock/Timer. So you have the option of a local source or a
remote source from every room. The control of the volume, balance etc
is completly independant. The amp in the Classik is extremely robust
for such a small unit, you can use whatever brand of speakers you
wish, although Linn themselves have some excelent inwall and
conventional speakers as well. I am using a Classik with Quads in one
room and it works out tremendously, the other rooms are using Linn
speakers of on variety or another.
JVB
rando...@yahoo.com (randogbert) wrote in message news:<3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com>...
Marc_F_Hult
message <3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com>:
>Hello,
>
>I posted a week or so ago and have since better understood my
>limitations.
>
>I want to have one source in my home for audio and home theater (HT).
>I want the following:
>
>a) HT setup in family room (location for all componentry)
>b) audio in kitchen/dining
>c) audio in master bedroom
>d) audio outside
>
>The twist is that I am interested in higher-end audio than one might
>expect with a whole-house setup - with nice speakers in all locations.
>These speakers will vary in maker, size and type and will be selected
>for the room or location. For instance, I may have Magnepan MGMC1's in
>the kitchen/dining (maybe even a subwoofer) and Axiom bookshelfs in
>the master bedroom, etc.
>
>I was thinking a high-quality 12 channel amp to power everything with
>5 channels going to the HT and 6 others going to the other 3 pairs.
>These would only require a total of 2 zones (HT for one, audio for the
>second) from a nice preamp. Another thought is to use a 5-channel A/V
>receiver for the HT and another amp for the other areas. I originally
>considered a 7 channel amp using 5 of those for the HT and the other 2
>from the 2nd zone outputs into a speaker selection (switching) box for
>the other 3 pairs since using them all at once isn't a primary
>requirement.
>
>Unfortunately, I can't find any good info on how good these amps are
>compared to higher end 2-channel amps (use B&K for comparison) or
>whether their high prices are based on the fact they are normally
>considered commercial products. I've been looking at the Niles SI-1260
>specifically. In fact, I have real concerns that the real different
>requirements based on the speakers for each room will require the
>ability to adjust EQ settings for each pair separately yet it doesn't
>appear that these multi-channel amps have that flexibility. In
>speaking with a tech at Niles, this is an unusual request and not
>something they provide for (for a $2500 amp!). This is odd to me. I
>was originally thinking that a multi-channel amp would allow me the
>most flexibility from all accounts.
>
>Rather than make this into a book, I'll stop here to see what comments
>I get, if any.
>
>Thank you for taking the time to read this and any response you may
>have.
>
>Randy in Northern California.
Randy,
I had a similar need and use Magneplanars both for the main speakers
(MG-1.5/QR's) and remotes (SMG's).The main Magneplanar are conventionally
powered by an ADCOM 5400 which handles the current requirements of the
Maggies nicely.
The solution for me for the remote speakers was to buy separate, used ADCOM
GSA-560/GSP-700's at eBay for ~$100+. Each of these provide three channels
(1x80/100 watt + 2x40/50 watt) with IR-based volume and input remote
control. The GSP-700 also switches video. They were designed as add-on's
for cheezy multi-channel audio strategies and are dumped cheep. You can
safely disregard the surround-sound functions and use them as high-quality,
amps with IR-controlled input and volume. The IR can be remotely routed (I
use a Nirvis Slinke) and is more easily integrated with home automation
controllers than most/many proprietary systems.
(FWIW, I have the pcbs, components, chassis, xfrms and heat sinks for 16
(sixteen) channels of Nelson Pass 40 watt Class A amps that are excess to
my needs that I'd be pleased as punch to pass on to someone at a bargain
price. 640 watt heater anyone?)
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult <use...@xxxhydrologistxxx.com>
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
> You are an obviously talented engineer who in my opinion, simply
allows
> personal bias to contaminate his work.
Arny is no audio engineer. At best, he is a technician. The Armed
Forces trained him as a technician and they did their job well,
in that they made him "the best that he can be", which ain't much.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
>
> Been there done that. Maybe you want to visit www.pcabx.com? If you
> read and understand just the home page, and realize what the cosmic
> meaning of the FACTS there are, you might think differently.
>
Ohm
Jezmund Von Brundt
up a multiroom system. This reduces noise and allows for very long
cable runs without signal loss. It compensates for distance, hum etc,
this is used in almost all professional applications as it offers
great advantages when distance or a good deal of EMI are involved.
I also have to agree with Mr. Morein that you should be very careful
before buying a P.A. amp for a audiophile application. In many
instances these amps are designed for volume and ruggedness more so
than sound quality. Often shortcuts are taken in these designs to
manufacture them to a particular price-point and maintain the
ruggedness required for commercial amplification. You should listen
very carefully and do a great deal of research before buying a product
that is not manufactured for the application you are using it for.
With that said, the commercial amplifier manufacturer Bryston of
Canada does make some excelent amps, which are worth a listen. They
for the most part all offer balanced audio outputs. However they do
not offer any kind of integrated multiroom offering. Bryston makes
very traditionally engineered, solid amps that are built to last a
lifetime. A distinction is though that bryston designed their amps to
dual use and makes audiophile versions of all their consumer amps.
Rane does not...
Arny Krueger
>
> Arny is no audio engineer. At best, he is a technician. The Armed
> Forces trained him as a technician and they did their job well,
> in that they made him "the best that he can be", which ain't much.
Of course, this is just a subset of my resume.
Sockpuppet Yustabe, by what authority do you claim to be qualified to
evaluate whether or not I'm an audio engineer?
Arny Krueger
news:758c79f0.02122...@posting.google.com
> Mr.Krueger is correct that balanced I/O is a huge benifit when
> setting up a multiroom system. This reduces noise and allows for
> very long cable runs without signal loss. It compensates for
> distance, hum etc, this is used in almost all professional
> applications as it offers great advantages when distance or a
> good deal of EMI are involved.
> I also have to agree with Mr.
> Morein that you should be very careful before buying a P.A. amp
> for a audiophile application.
Who said anything about PA amplifiers?
It is true that some people use high quality amplifiers for P.A.
systems. Does this necessarily make any amplifier that is ever used
for such a purpose a "P.A. Amplifier"?
randogbert
on mono-block amps. So... if I decide to run line level cables from a
preamp, I'm assuming that would be better than running speaker wires?
Is there a loss or interference to be considered when running long
lengths of line level cables as well? And what is the best way to
split the pair coming from the preamp? Daisy chain through the amps?
What's cool about that is maximum flexibility. I would still need
volume controls between the amps and the speakers, but that's no big
deal. I'm still not sure how to add subwoofers into the separate zones
should I decide to, or if I'll need any type of other EQ controls...
any comments here?
Also, the Niles preamp you mentioned has some nice features but is
missing others. Here's where I really show my ignorance... can more
than one preamp be used in a system like this? I.E: A/V preamp Zone 2
out to Niles multi-channel preamp out to separate amps? Probably
wouldn't do that since the Niles preamp is really much more complex
than I need with most features going unused, but for general knowledge
it would be nice to know. Remember, the whole goal here is to use one
platform where all the source components reside (CD, DVD, tuner, etc)
and be able to have them ported to different locations with quality
sound.
I appreciate the comments. That said, please don't use this thread for
bashing... it's all good.
Thanks,
Randy
"Erik Squires" <erik_s...@hotFILTERmail.com> wrote in message news:<3e0d238f$1...@nopics.sjc>...
> You know, at some point you will realise just how important ergonomics and
> ease of use are going to be.
>
> I looked at the Niles web site. I suggest their 12 channel Preamplifier
> (not the receiver) as it has the tone controls you are looking for. Add to
> that your choices of external amplifiers, and you'll pretty much get the
> whole house wired.
>
> Also, if you're going to go that route, I'd keep the home theater system as
> separate as possible. Keep it simple, and in it's own space. This will
> give you maximum flexibility.
>
> Another possibility is a combination. Start with something like the Lexicon
> MC-12 which gives you 3 zones, you can use one zone for your whole house,
> and have 2 A/V zones. This way you can have 2 rooms with sound and movie
> capability. It depends on wether you wish to have many multiple areas which
> can be independently selected, or wether you want 1 source going to your
> entire house.
>
> Take care,
>
> ERik
Robert Morein
> I just looked at the Outlaw audio website and they have a great price
> on mono-block amps. So... if I decide to run line level cables from a
> preamp, I'm assuming that would be better than running speaker wires?
> Is there a loss or interference to be considered when running long
> lengths of line level cables as well? And what is the best way to
> split the pair coming from the preamp? Daisy chain through the amps?
>
Unless you are using balanced lines, which require equipment that accept
them, unacceptable levels of hum will result.
Unbalanced lines are extremely susceptible to all kinds of effects. You
can't fix it by using good cable or positioning the lines. The way the house
is wired for power has an effect, and even putting everything on the same
branch won't fix it.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
You have been asked numerous time to post to RAO your qualifications
as an audio engineer and you have failed to do so.
After the U.N. is done looking for hidden WMP programs in Iraq, we'll
send them to your house to try to find out where you are hiding
your so called qualifications.
Robert Morein
> Mr.Krueger is correct that balanced I/O is a huge benifit when setting
> up a multiroom system. This reduces noise and allows for very long
> cable runs without signal loss. It compensates for distance, hum etc,
> this is used in almost all professional applications as it offers
> great advantages when distance or a good deal of EMI are involved.
> I also have to agree with Mr. Morein that you should be very careful
> before buying a P.A. amp for a audiophile application. In many
> instances these amps are designed for volume and ruggedness more so
> than sound quality. Often shortcuts are taken in these designs to
> manufacture them to a particular price-point and maintain the
> ruggedness required for commercial amplification. You should listen
> very carefully and do a great deal of research before buying a product
> that is not manufactured for the application you are using it for.
I concur with both of the above remarks.
> With that said, the commercial amplifier manufacturer Bryston of
> Canada does make some excelent amps, which are worth a listen. They
> for the most part all offer balanced audio outputs. However they do
> not offer any kind of integrated multiroom offering. Bryston makes
> very traditionally engineered, solid amps that are built to last a
> lifetime. A distinction is though that bryston designed their amps to
> dual use and makes audiophile versions of all their consumer amps.
> Rane does not...
>
I've sampled an older Bryston amp. While the build quality was impressive, I
was not impressed with the sound of this low bias amp. Perhaps the newer
ones sound better?
I have very strong preferences regarding amplifiers. So I think it's
important for Randogbert to choose carefully, or at least to try to choose
carefully. If he then determines that variations in this component do not
interest him, he is then free to pick based upon ergonometrics and
practicality.
I just think it's a shame to buy 12 channels of anything, and then discover
one really prefers the sound of high bias MOSFETs, Transnova amps, bipolar
Class-A-to-35-watts, etc.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:l_nP9.462$zV2...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>> "sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
>> news:3e0de...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com
>>>
>>> Arny is no audio engineer. At best, he is a technician. The
>>> Armed Forces trained him as a technician and they did their job
>>> well, in that they made him "the best that he can be", which
>>> ain't much.
>> Of course, this is just a subset of my resume.
IOW Sockpuppet Yustabe is trying to be deceptive.
>> Sockpuppet Yustabe, by what authority do you claim to be
>> qualified to evaluate whether or not I'm an audio engineer?
> You have been asked numerous time to post to RAO your
> qualifications as an audio engineer and you have failed to do so.
Neither true nor responsive to the question I asked.
Take it as an admission that Sockpuppet Yustabe has no relevant
qualifications.
Joseph Oberlander
> No, it's not. Our purposes are disjoint.
>
> Your publication list is not valueless.
> I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
> However, there is no evidence that you string the individual pieces together
> in a coherent fashion.
>
> It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
As opposed to arm-waiving, badly implimented?
Give him some credit. He puts in many hours trying to actually
apply some science to audio. His audio card test page is a great
resource that I point people to all the time - because his observations
tend to mirror what I and many others have found.
If he's getting this right, then his methods and science are
likely correct. What he does with the data and the conclusions he
draws from it... well, we are all free to argue on that. :)
Joseph Oberlander
> I just looked at the Outlaw audio website and they have a great price
> on mono-block amps. So... if I decide to run line level cables from a
> preamp, I'm assuming that would be better than running speaker wires?
> Is there a loss or interference to be considered when running long
> lengths of line level cables as well? And what is the best way to
> split the pair coming from the preamp? Daisy chain through the amps?
>
> What's cool about that is maximum flexibility. I would still need
> volume controls between the amps and the speakers, but that's no big
> deal. I'm still not sure how to add subwoofers into the separate zones
> should I decide to, or if I'll need any type of other EQ controls...
> any comments here?
Just get a normal A/V amplifier and run it in stereo mode. Run the
line-levels from the source into the main amp, bypassing the amp's
own preamp. You get a remote control and all the goodies in each
room, plus subwoofer output and such.
Most typical consumer amplifiers will drive Maggies well enough in
two channel mode. Denon, HK, NAD, Onkyo, and simmilar models are
rated to drive 4 ohm speakers if only used in stereo mode.
The Denon IMO, is a perfect solution - it has a preamp out to a second
amplifier, and the rear/secondary channels can drive the outdoor speakers,
which are really not much of a load at all. The second room will have its
own amplifier, so you can either daisy-chain them together, or bypass the
main room's input altogether say if you want two different FM channels,
as it is a full-fledged receiver by itself.
Arny Krueger
message news:3E0E4784...@earthlink.net
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> No, it's not. Our purposes are disjoint.
>> Your publication list is not valueless.
>> I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
>> However, there is no evidence that you string the individual
>> pieces together in a coherent fashion.
>> It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
> As opposed to arm-waiving, badly implemented?
If you look at the thread, everytime Morien gets cornered, he starts
raving about bad science. I take it to be as serious and significant
as Singh's rants about how bad someone's stereo is. Obviously Singh
hasn't heard the stereo and can't know, but he's trying to be as
hurtful as he can be.
> Give him some credit. He puts in many hours trying to actually
> apply some science to audio. His audio card test page is a great
> resource that I point people to all the time - because his
> observations tend to mirror what I and many others have found.
Thank you.
> If he's getting this right, then his methods and science are
> likely correct. What he does with the data and the conclusions
> he draws from it... well, we are all free to argue on that. :)
One important point about www.pcabx.com is that there are no results,
test data, or conclusions posted on the site. Those are left to the
listeners to develop on their own.
Robert Morein
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > No, it's not. Our purposes are disjoint.
> >
> > Your publication list is not valueless.
> > I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
> > However, there is no evidence that you string the individual pieces
together
> > in a coherent fashion.
> >
> > It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
>
> As opposed to arm-waiving, badly implimented?
>
>
> Give him some credit. He puts in many hours trying to actually
> apply some science to audio. His audio card test page is a great
> resource that I point people to all the time - because his observations
> tend to mirror what I and many others have found.
>
No argument that DBT testing is desirable. However, the devil is in the
details.
In the case of audio components, I do not believe he does it well.
It's obvious that he is very emotionally attached to the conclusions he
draws, far too much so. I would not like to entrust someone so emotional
with sole stewardship of the truth, whatever that may be.
As with persons who take a middle position on an emotional issue, my
position tends to antagonize persons on opposite poles. I do not believe
that Randogbert should, in the absence of ABX equipment, fail to trust his
ears. On the other hand, if he did in fact have ABX equipment available,
which was made well enough not to conceal differences, then he should avail
himself of it.
> If he's getting this right, then his methods and science are
> likely correct.
I strongly disagree. You are extrapolating. This is Arny's sin. Extrapolated
conclusions are of low quality.
This is how you are supposed to do it:
1. Establish the performance of a no-cost no-limititations design, using the
50 ton granite slab, the bed of mercury, the Halcro amp, the mercury wetted
relay contacts, and the extensive use of unobtanium alloy. The direct
translation of this is that Arny has to build a device using all the things
which he doesn't think matter, but concerned third parties think might.
2. Build a practical device and show that the result, ie., the level of
discrimination is the same.
Arny doesn't do this. He makes "reasonable" assumptions. There is NO SUCH
THING as a "reasonable assumption." He has the typically limited resources
of an individual. He doesn't have a Halcro amp; he doesnt even have a Hafler
XL-600. He has had one or two high-priced amps in his hands, and he
EXTRAPOLATED. He made these items stand in for the universe of high-priced
amps.
I built an ABX device. I built it out of a pile of brand new relays with
nickel-palladium contacts. It has a remote control device, it has precision
pots for level control, and it will do speaker and/or line level switching.
The device is a failure. I took it over to a friend's house, who I am
convinced hears differences which do not exist, being influenced by the
physical appearance of the unit, etc. We tried it out, and discovered that
the device was masking the differences. What I had neglected is the quality
of the relay contacts. Nickel-palladium has too much resistance. There are
rectification effects. I should have used silver-silver oxide, but they
weren't locally available.
>What he does with the data and the conclusions he
> draws from it... well, we are all free to argue on that. :)
>
I doubt Arny made such a grevious mistake, but there are multitudinous
places where hubris and extrapolation will temporarily allow logic to cross
little crevices. That's why I say Arny's work is 80% good. It's the 20% that
kills the data. Would he fairly interpret the data? I don't know. Arny has
never had a chance.
So I think Arny's talent should be coupled with that of several
collaborators with more temperate dispositions, and less fervor. People who
are more interested in finding the truth than proving a point. People with
deep pockets, so that Arny does not have to make "reasonable assumptions."
And as for my amplifiers? They are like musical instruments to me, and less
bulky than speakers. For my collection, I have picked examples of various
topologies. One type is notably absent: the bipolar class AB low bias. Many
of these amps, like the Crown DC series, the early Brystons, and Ranes, and
the early Aragons, have a sound that drives me out of the room. Naturally,
it annoys me that Arny says I should sit still and be happy, because "there
is no audible difference."
And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
Jezmund Von Brundt
solid state amps, although I do agree there are large differences
between some of them. When you buy any amp that has a huge number of
channels, the power supply is going to suffer, as it is difficult in a
standard sized box to fit a large enough supply for 12 channels. I
think it is better to buy smaller 2 channel amps. I use the Knekt
system at home and I have in one room what is called a roomamp that
has the amp and a balanced audio knekt port built into a wall
mountable or a behind wall mountable unit. You are better having small
amps in each room and running balanced connections to them....
JVB
"Robert Morein" <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<hLKdnYxQIco...@comcast.com>...
>
> I've sampled an older Bryston amp. While the build quality was impressive, I
> was not impressed with the sound of this low bias amp. Perhaps the newer
> ones sound better?
>
> I just think it's a shame to buy 12 channels of anything, and then discover
Jezmund Von Brundt
So... if I decide to run line level cables from a
> preamp, I'm assuming that would be better than running speaker wires?
> Is there a loss or interference to be considered when running long
> lengths of line level cables as well? And what is the best way to
> split the pair coming from the preamp?
Not to sound like a broken record, use balanced I/O from some vendor
or another. Long runs of line level cables are very suseptable to hum
and signal degredation. Line Level cables are probably the best way
to connect component in less than 5m distances, however after that you
are relying on good luck that it will work properly.
JVB
Jezmund Von Brundt
sonically. This is not a bash on RANE, but it is just the specific
design brief for the M-3 & 6 are not for high quality, high bandwidth
amplifiers, they are compeating with Bogen PA amps. Right on RANE'S
website www.rane.com it tells you what they expect these amps to be
used for..
"The MA 6S is a six-channel amplifier designed to operate reliably in
commercial environments. The MA 6S was specifically designed for use
in:
Paging
Foreground Music
Background Music Distribution.
It is also a perfect companion to the Rane family of paging,
foreground music, and background music products, such as the Rane CP
series."
If this amp was a made in heaven match for multichannel audio,
certainly RANE would be selling it as such, they are a successful
company and are no dummy's.
JVB
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<y2oP9.464$GW2...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
Robert Morein
> The RANE is not a high quality amplifier, at least as far as
> sonically. This is not a bash on RANE, but it is just the specific
> design brief for the M-3 & 6 are not for high quality, high bandwidth
> amplifiers, they are compeating with Bogen PA amps. Right on RANE'S
> website www.rane.com it tells you what they expect these amps to be
> used for..
> "The MA 6S is a six-channel amplifier designed to operate reliably in
> commercial environments. The MA 6S was specifically designed for use
> in:
>
And Arny Krueger has, if I understand him correctly, convinced himself that
the RANE is sonically indistinguishable, or nearly so, from other, more
expensive choices.
I submit this as support for my belief that Arny needs collaborators to go
over his work, redo it with his participation, correct the procedural
errors, and salvage the good 80% of his work which is unfortunately obscured
by the 20% which isn't up to snuff.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
Hello?
You've never been employed as one.
dave weil
wrote:
>"Joseph Oberlander" <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>message news:3E0E4784...@earthlink.net
>
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>>> No, it's not. Our purposes are disjoint.
>
>>> Your publication list is not valueless.
>>> I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
>>> However, there is no evidence that you string the individual
>>> pieces together in a coherent fashion.
>
>>> It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
>
>> As opposed to arm-waiving, badly implemented?
>
>If you look at the thread, everytime Morien gets cornered, he starts
>raving about bad science. I take it to be as serious and significant
>as Singh's rants about how bad someone's stereo is. Obviously Singh
>hasn't heard the stereo and can't know, but he's trying to be as
>hurtful as he can be.
Unlike you, who can look at a web site for a product that he's never
heard and determine that it's 'snake oil".
Right.
Arny Krueger
"sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
> Hello?
Hello?
Try again.
Arny Krueger
"dave weil" <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vt5t0vs8uk6dioldo...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 02:10:25 GMT, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Joseph Oberlander" <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >message news:3E0E4784...@earthlink.net
> >
> >> Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >>> No, it's not. Our purposes are disjoint.
> >
> >>> Your publication list is not valueless.
> >>> I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
> >>> However, there is no evidence that you string the individual
> >>> pieces together in a coherent fashion.
> >
> >>> It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
> >> As opposed to arm-waving, badly implemented?
> >If you look at the thread, every time Morien gets cornered, he
starts
> >raving about bad science. I take it to be as serious and
significant
> >as Singh's rants about how bad someone's stereo is. Obviously
Singh
> >hasn't heard the stereo and can't know, but he's trying to be as
> >hurtful as he can be.
> Unlike you, who can look at a web site for a product that he's
never
> heard and determine that it's 'snake oil".
It's not the same analytical problem at all.
> Right.
As usual, Weil doesn't understand what he's talking about. I'd
explain it to him but he's long proven himself too stupid and
arrogant to benefit from explanations like this.
Arny Krueger
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
> news:3E0E4784...@earthlink.net...
> > Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > > No, it's not. Our purposes are disjoint.
> > > Your publication list is not valueless.
It was extensive, and as I'll show below, Morein hasn't read even the
most important refereed papers that were on it.
> > > I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
(1) These ideas aren't just my ideas
(2) These ideas are well-supported by the scientific literature and
documents from well-known, authoritative international standards
groups.
(3) Morein has shown that he isn't all that familiar with them, so
he's basically speculating or extrapolating when he tries to pass
judgment on them.
> > > However, there is no evidence that you string the individual
pieces together
> > > in a coherent fashion.
Given that Morein hasn't done his homework, how can he properly say
this with any authority?
> > > It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
Remember that Morein's alternative is no scientific implementation at
all.
> > As opposed to arm-waiving, badly implemented?
Exactly.
> > Give him some credit. He puts in many hours trying to actually
> > apply some science to audio. His audio card test page is a great
> > resource that I point people to all the time - because his
observations
> > tend to mirror what I and many others have found.
> Actually, I do give him credit. His audio test card page is very
nice.
My online audio test reports are composed of far more than just the
one page that Morein claims. But how would Morein know? He doesn't do
his homework!
www.pcavtech.com pales in significance compared to www.pcabx.com.
> No argument that DBT testing is desirable. However, the devil is in
the details.
And I've got the details, cold.
> In the case of audio components, I do not believe he does it well.
As I will show below, Morein's beliefs are based on grievously flawed
thinking and demonstrated ignorance of highly relevant facts that
are readily available to the general public from sources that are
entirely independent of me.
> It's obvious that he is very emotionally attached to the
conclusions he
> draws, far too much so. I would not like to entrust someone so
emotional
> with sole stewardship of the truth, whatever that may be.
This is a classic straw man argument because I'm hardly the sole
steward of the truth when it comes to the necessity for blind testing
of power amps or other audio gear. I don't know how Morein can say
things like this, except if speaking from total ignorance.
> As with persons who take a middle position on an emotional issue,
my
> position tends to antagonize persons on opposite poles.
Morein is simply wrong here. He's not taking the middle ground, he's
taking one of the two possible extreme positions.
>I do not believe
> that Randogbert should, in the absence of ABX equipment, fail to
trust his
> ears.
If I want to hear a statement of faith, I'll go to religious
services.
>On the other hand, if he did in fact have ABX equipment available,
> which was made well enough not to conceal differences, then he
should avail
> himself of it.
This is all fine and good, except that its intellectually very weak
because it basically says that its OK to do a crappy job of something
if you don't have the proper tools.
> > If he's getting this right, then his methods and science are
> > likely correct.
> I strongly disagree. You are extrapolating. This is Arny's sin.
Extrapolated
> conclusions are of low quality.
Given that Morein just reached an extrapolated conclusion of his own
about DBTs being optional when you don't have the resources, one
really has to wonder!
> This is how you are supposed to do it:
BTW, here's a case study in setting up a long, complex straw man.
> 1. Establish the performance of a no-cost no-limitations design,
using the
> 50 ton granite slab, the bed of mercury, the Halcro amp, the
mercury wetted
> relay contacts, and the extensive use of unobtanium alloy.
Since "unobtanium" is a mythical material that is impossible to
obtain, you can interpret this statement from Morein as saying that
its impossible to do a proper blind listening test. The 50 ton
granite slab is just about as ridiculous as the unobtainium alloy.
Basically, Morein is saying that its OK for him or anybody else to do
sighted evaluations with no controls at all, but anybody who wants to
do a proper level-matched, blind, listening test of power amps has to
jump through contrived, impossible hoops that he's made up with his
own fertile imagination.
If Morein can compare two power amps WITHOUT the 50 ton granite slab,
the bed of mercury, the Halcro amp, the mercury wetted relay
contacts, and the extensive use of unobtanium alloy, why can't
someone do a relevant blind test under the same basic conditions that
he uses?
> The direct
> translation of this is that Arny has to build a device using all
the things
> which he doesn't think matter, but concerned third parties think
might.
I claim that all I have to do is duplicate the actual tests that the
third parties such as Morein actually does, add level-matching,
blinding, and time synchronization (not really a problem with power
amps), and examine the consequences.
> 2. Build a practical device and show that the result, i.e.., the
level of
> discrimination is the same.
There's a hidden question here, which is "same as what"?
It is well-known that Morein's sighted evaluations aren't just about
the discrimination powers of the human ear, but also about the
discrimination powers of the human eye and the well-known ability of
the human mind to be affected by prejudice.
Therefore, it is obvious and clear that Morein's sighted evaluations
can't be used as a standard for judging the discrimination powers of
the human ear or any true listening test.
OTOH, there is a long history of scientific studies of the ability of
the human ear to hear differences. I've cited some of them in this
thread, but there are tons more that I've studied.
When you find that two power amps sound different in a blind test,
and measure the differences, they are always the same or greater than
the known abilities of the human ear to hear differences under the
same general circumstances.
Therefore, it is well-known in scientific circles that DBTs of power
amps and other audio gear have equal discriminatory powers as science
has shown that the ears have, in other circumstances that are
comparable.
> Arny doesn't do this.
Actually, I do but Morein doesn't know what I do. He's talking off
the top of his head.
> He makes "reasonable" assumptions.
Which compare favorably to the unreasonable assumptions of the kind
that I just showed, and will continue to show that Morein makes.
Remember, I've already shown that Morein's first two conditions are
thinly-disguised straw men.
>There is NO SUCH THING as a "reasonable assumption."
If that's true then Morein's first two conditions, which are
themselves based on assumptions, should be thrown out immediately. I
mean who says that a 50 ton granite slab is enough? Why not 100 tons?
Why not 1,000 tons? Morein assumed that 50 tons is enough. What about
those mercury-contact relays. Are they really good enough? Morein
assumed that they are. What Morein doesn't seem to know is that I've
eliminated the need for relays or switches of any kind in blind
tests.
> He has the typically limited resources of an individual. He
doesn't have a Halcro amp; he doesn't even have a Hafler XL-600. He
has had one or two high-priced amps in his hands, and he
EXTRAPOLATED. He made these items stand in for the universe of
high-priced amps.
What Morein doesn't seem to know is that I've eliminated the need for
any other power amp but the UUT in my straight wire bypass tests of
power amps.
Now let's look at Morein's extrapolations. Despite all the scientific
literature that I've already cited for him about the need for blind,
level-matched, time-synched tests, he's assumed that it all doesn't
apply to him or anybody else. You know there's one thing about a good
extrapolation, it starts with a solid fact. Where are Morein's solid
facts?
> I built an ABX device. I built it out of a pile of brand new relays
with
> nickel-palladium contacts. It has a remote control device, it has
precision
> pots for level control, and it will do speaker and/or line level
switching.
Unhh, Mr. Morein Sir, where are the mercury-wetted contacts that you
said are absolutely needed?
> The device is a failure. I took it over to a friend's house, who I
am
> convinced hears differences which do not exist, being influenced by
the
> physical appearance of the unit, etc. We tried it out, and
discovered that
> the device was masking the differences. What I had neglected is the
quality
> of the relay contacts. Nickel-palladium has too much resistance.
There are
> rectification effects. I should have used silver-silver oxide, but
they
> weren't locally available.
Morein's error here is that he imposes his personal limitations on
me. He obviously must think he's spent as much or more time and money
on DBTs than I have.
I did my homework well over 20 years ago. I built switchboxes for
years. I talked to industry experts and scoured electronic supply
stores looking for the best possible relay contacts Eventually I
found them. BTW, they weren't nickel-palladium.
BTW, I didn't build just one prototype ABX relay box. I built more
like a dozen. I built a box for switching speaker-level signals that
used silver contacts about the size of dimes. I built a box for
low-level signals with hermetically-sealed mercury contacts. I built
another box for low-level signals that used bifurcated gold-plated
contacts. I built a box that used palladium contacts. I build a box
that used ruthenium contacts. I built other boxes with other contact
materials and configurations.
Each relay box was subjected to both technical and subjective tests.
Some were excellent, some were good enough, some were almost good
enough, and some were failures.
> >What he does with the data and the conclusions he
> > draws from it... well, we are all free to argue on that. :)
> I doubt Arny made such a grievous mistake, but there are
multitudinous
> places where hubris and extrapolation will temporarily allow logic
to cross
> little crevices. That's why I say Arny's work is 80% good. It's the
20% that
> kills the data. Would he fairly interpret the data? I don't know.
Arny has
> never had a chance.
More of Morein's questionable extrapolations based on very little
real data.
I didn't work alone. I don't work alone. ABX was a team effort. PCABX
is a team effort. The core of the ABX team was six people from
various subdisciplines of audio, but a number of outside industry
experts contributed as well.
> So I think Arny's talent should be coupled with that of several
> collaborators with more temperate dispositions, and less fervor.
The other people in the ABX group were so temperate that Morein
doesn't even know they exist!
David Clark (The David Clark who is an AES Fellow) is the best-known
member of the group. If you read Clark's JAES ABX paper (which Morein
obviously hasn't done) you will find my name and the names of 4
other people. This list belies Morein's claim about my not having
coworkers. Obviously Morein hasn't done his homework. When Morein can
tell us who these people are, we'll know that he's done at least a
little homework. Until we know he's speaking from near-total
ignorance.
> People who
> are more interested in finding the truth than proving a point.
People with
> deep pockets, so that Arny does not have to make "reasonable
assumptions."
In a previous post on this thread I gave the names of two $Billion
USD corporations that rely on DBTs for listening test evaluations.
One of them was evangelized for DBTs by our Canadian colleagues, and
the other, far larger corporation was evangelized by us. How deep do
the pockets have to be?
> And as for my amplifiers? They are like musical instruments to me,
and less
> bulky than speakers. For my collection, I have picked examples of
various
> topologies. One type is notably absent: the bipolar class AB low
bias. Many
> of these amps, like the Crown DC series, the early Brystons, and
Ranes, and
> the early Aragons, have a sound that drives me out of the room.
Naturally,
> it annoys me that Arny says I should sit still and be happy,
because "there
> is no audible difference."
More baseless extrapolations. My solution to the potential problem of
power amps in listening was to develop a viable, accurate methodology
that does not involve the use of any power amps other than the UUT.
Straight wire is good.
> And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
Right. But given the self-contradictions, the straw men, and the
grievously limited resources and research that Morein has brought
to this discussion , and the clearly demonstrated fact that he
hasn't done his homework, how would Morein know for sure?
I gave Morein a roadmap to straightening himself out earlier in this
thread. He basically dismissed it. How much further do I have to go
down his crooked road with him?
Arny Krueger
> I just looked at the Outlaw audio website and they have a great
price
> on mono-block amps.
I would say, "nothing special". If I was going to buy ca. 200 wpc
rackable amps, I'd go for Mackie M1400s. You're going to hide these
away so the Mackie's fans aren't an issue. The Mackies should cost
you slightly less, they are significantly more powerful, and they
have balanced inputs. Furthermore, the Mackies have been on the
market for over 3 years and are therefore better debugged.
>So... if I decide to run line level cables from a
> preamp, I'm assuming that would be better than running speaker
wires?
Within reason, yes. I looked at the Outlaw web site's users manual
and saw the nice discussion of ground loops. I don't think they put
it there for the fun of it! Balanced I/O tends to help with ground
loops. LOTS!
> Is there a loss or interference to be considered when running long
> lengths of line level cables as well?
Of course. If you are going to drive many power amps from one source,
particularly at the end of long signal lines (say 20-50 feet or more)
you use a distribution amplifier which is a line level signal
amplifier with many buffered outputs.
>And what is the best way to
> split the pair coming from the preamp?
An audio distribution amplifier.
>Daisy chain through the amps?
Absolutely not!
> What's cool about that is maximum flexibility. I would still need
> volume controls between the amps and the speakers, but that's no
big
> deal. I'm still not sure how to add subwoofers into the separate
zones
> should I decide to, or if I'll need any type of other EQ
controls...
> any comments here?
I'm not going to repeat myself just to be ignored again.
Arny Krueger
> The RANE is not a high quality amplifier, at least as far as
> sonically.
Tell me about your DBTs, Jezmund.
> This is not a bash on RANE, but it is just the specific
> design brief for the M-3 & 6 are not for high quality, high
bandwidth
> amplifiers, they are competing with Bogen PA amps.
I don't see the integrated mixers that one sees in the typical Bogen
amp in use.
I also note that Bogen makes some high-powered 2-channel power amps
with pretty good specs. I suppose you've done DBTs of them as well?
> Right on RANE'S
> website www.rane.com it tells you what they expect these amps to be
> used for..
> "The MA 6S is a six-channel amplifier designed to operate reliably
in
> commercial environments. The MA 6S was specifically designed for
use
> in:
> Paging
> Foreground Music
> Background Music Distribution.
> It is also a perfect companion to the Rane family of paging,
> foreground music, and background music products, such as the Rane
CP
> series."
It's also a high quality 6-channel power amp. It's got the balanced
I/O that you like. The only real concession to sound reinforcement is
the limiters, but MacIntosh has put a similar feature on some of
their power amps.
> If this amp was a made in heaven match for multichannel audio,
> certainly RANE would be selling it as such, they are a successful
> company and are no dummy's.
Jezmund, this is so ironic I almost can't believe it. You are the
subjectivist and you are prone to say that listening tests are the
final arbiter.
You tell me about your personal DBT experiences with a MA-6 and I'll
tell you about mine. BTW, see if you can pick out the MA-6 in this
picture:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/arny_k/upstairs-labthumb.jpg
Arny Krueger
>
> "Jezmund Von Brundt" <jezm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:758c79f0.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > The RANE is not a high quality amplifier, at least as far as
> > sonically. This is not a bash on RANE, but it is just the
specific
> > design brief for the M-3 & 6 are not for high quality, high
bandwidth
RANE'S
> > website www.rane.com it tells you what they expect these amps to
be
> > used for..
> > "The MA 6S is a six-channel amplifier designed to operate
reliably in
> > commercial environments. The MA 6S was specifically designed for
use
> > in:
> And Arny Krueger has, if I understand him correctly, convinced
himself that
> the RANE is sonically indistinguishable, or nearly so, from other,
more
> expensive choices.
As usual you are fact-challenged, Morein. If you were actually even
reading this thread and comprehending it, you'd know that in terms of
MSRP and/or street pricing, the MA-6 has NO particular price
advantages over alternatives from Outlaw or B&K that have been
discussed in this thread. Unlike them, it does have balanced inputs
which *everybody* on this thread including both you and Jezmund agree
is useful in this application.
So when are you and Jezmund going to get with it and recommend
equipment that is consistent with your own technical recommendations?
> I submit this as support for my belief that Arny needs
collaborators to go
> over his work, redo it with his participation, correct the
procedural
> errors, and salvage the good 80% of his work which is unfortunately
obscured
> by the 20% which isn't up to snuff.
Again Morein, you are abjectly fact-challenged. I told you to go read
a certain AES paper that clearly lists a few of my collaborators, one
of whom is an AES Fellow. BTW I still associate with him (and many of
the rest) frequently. I might even spend New Year's eve with his wife
and extended family. I guess you should have taken my advice and
catch up with your reading, eh?
BTW, Morein, why not name the AES Fellow that is on YOUR advisory
board?
LOL!
Robert Morein
>
>
> (1) These ideas aren't just my ideas
Hitler had lots of company too.
>
> (2) These ideas are well-supported by the scientific literature and
> documents from well-known, authoritative international standards
> groups.
>
Unfortunately, the 80% of what you do (or use) is good, smudged by the
spectacles of intellectual dishonesty.
> (3) Morein has shown that he isn't all that familiar with them, so
> he's basically speculating or extrapolating when he tries to pass
> judgment on them.
>
What a brilliant proof. You have shown it!!! Arny, my hat is off to you, who
by the above impeccable chain of logic, have proved that you are a good
scientist.
> > > > However, there is no evidence that you string the individual
> pieces together
> > > > in a coherent fashion.
>
> Given that Morein hasn't done his homework, how can he properly say
> this with any authority?
Because you spackled the holes in your dissertation with crap.
>
> > > > It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
>
> Remember that Morein's alternative is no scientific implementation at
> all.
I'm sorry. I guess we're better off with BAD SCIENCE.
>
> > > As opposed to arm-waiving, badly implemented?
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > Give him some credit. He puts in many hours trying to actually
> > > apply some science to audio.
Yes, Arny, you tried.
His audio card test page is a great
> > > resource that I point people to all the time - because his
> observations
> > > tend to mirror what I and many others have found.
>
> > Actually, I do give him credit. His audio test card page is very
> nice.
>
> My online audio test reports are composed of far more than just the
> one page that Morein claims. But how would Morein know? He doesn't do
> his homework!
>
> www.pcavtech.com pales in significance compared to www.pcabx.com.
>
> > No argument that DBT testing is desirable. However, the devil is in
> the details.
>
> And I've got the details, cold.
You say so, so it must be true. After all, everyone thinks a Rane is a fine
amplifier :).
>
> > In the case of audio components, I do not believe he does it well.
>
> As I will show below, Morein's beliefs are based on grievously flawed
> thinking and demonstrated ignorance of highly relevant facts that
> are readily available to the general public from sources that are
> entirely independent of me.
>
> > It's obvious that he is very emotionally attached to the
> conclusions he
> > draws, far too much so. I would not like to entrust someone so
> emotional
> > with sole stewardship of the truth, whatever that may be.
>
> This is a classic straw man argument because I'm hardly the sole
> steward of the truth when it comes to the necessity for blind testing
> of power amps or other audio gear. I don't know how Morein can say
> things like this, except if speaking from total ignorance.
You have a talent for misunderstanding. I think ABX testing is highly
beneficial. You happen to do it WRONG.
>
> > As with persons who take a middle position on an emotional issue,
> my
> > position tends to antagonize persons on opposite poles.
>
> Morein is simply wrong here. He's not taking the middle ground, he's
> taking one of the two possible extreme positions.
As you are the most brilliant man alive, the above statement is
unquestionably true.
>
> >I do not believe
> > that Randogbert should, in the absence of ABX equipment, fail to
> trust his
> > ears.
>
> If I want to hear a statement of faith, I'll go to religious
> services.
>
> >On the other hand, if he did in fact have ABX equipment available,
> > which was made well enough not to conceal differences, then he
> should avail
> > himself of it.
>
> This is all fine and good, except that its intellectually very weak
> because it basically says that its OK to do a crappy job of something
> if you don't have the proper tools.
>
That's your intepretation of my words. Since it happens to be wrong, I'll
restate it:
Or, depending upon who you are in this argument, it means that you do the
best job you practically can, depending upon how important the result is to
persons besides yourself.
> > > If he's getting this right, then his methods and science are
> > > likely correct.
>
> > I strongly disagree. You are extrapolating. This is Arny's sin.
> Extrapolated
> > conclusions are of low quality.
>
> Given that Morein just reached an extrapolated conclusion of his own
> about DBTs being optional when you don't have the resources, one
> really has to wonder!
>
Taking your argument to the absurb conclusion, does it say that Randogbert
should not listen to the equipment before he buys it? Or that he should rely
on your ears because you happen to have a crappy, ill-conceived
implementation of an excellent concept?
> > This is how you are supposed to do it:
>
> BTW, here's a case study in setting up a long, complex straw man.
>
> > 1. Establish the performance of a no-cost no-limitations design,
> using the
> > 50 ton granite slab, the bed of mercury, the Halcro amp, the
> mercury wetted
> > relay contacts, and the extensive use of unobtanium alloy.
>
> Since "unobtanium" is a mythical material that is impossible to
> obtain, you can interpret this statement from Morein as saying that
> its impossible to do a proper blind listening test. The 50 ton
> granite slab is just about as ridiculous as the unobtainium alloy.
>
Somehow, I assumed that the above statement would be interpreted, not
misinterpreted. It means, to go to extroadinary lengths to be sure the
methodology is not compromised by procedural or qualitative weaknesses. This
you have egregiously omitted.
> Basically, Morein is saying that its OK for him or anybody else to do
> sighted evaluations with no controls at all, but anybody who wants to
> do a proper level-matched, blind, listening test of power amps has to
> jump through contrived, impossible hoops that he's made up with his
> own fertile imagination.
>
Like I say, 20 years of research that proves a Rane is a fine amplifier is
spackled with crap.
I know what you've done, Arny. It's utterly ridiculous. But I'm not going to
restate another man's work. Capsulize it, and I'll rip it the new asshole it
so richly deserves.
> > He has the typically limited resources of an individual. He
> doesn't have a Halcro amp; he doesn't even have a Hafler XL-600. He
> has had one or two high-priced amps in his hands, and he
> EXTRAPOLATED. He made these items stand in for the universe of
> high-priced amps.
>
> What Morein doesn't seem to know is that I've eliminated the need for
> any other power amp but the UUT in my straight wire bypass tests of
> power amps.
>
David Hafler did it, but he did it right. You do it WRONG.
No, Arny, you've spent a lot more time, a lot more money, but when you spack
your house with crap, the wolf is going to blow it down.
>
> I did my homework well over 20 years ago. I built switchboxes for
> years. I talked to industry experts and scoured electronic supply
> stores looking for the best possible relay contacts Eventually I
> found them. BTW, they weren't nickel-palladium.
>
Agreed.
I can see the implementation of the concept has been considerably altered in
the meantime.
> > So I think Arny's talent should be coupled with that of several
> > collaborators with more temperate dispositions, and less fervor.
>
> The other people in the ABX group were so temperate that Morein
> doesn't even know they exist!
>
They should get back in. I have a feeling they don't endorse your
extensions.
> David Clark (The David Clark who is an AES Fellow) is the best-known
> member of the group. If you read Clark's JAES ABX paper (which Morein
> obviously hasn't done) you will find my name and the names of 4
> other people. This list belies Morein's claim about my not having
> coworkers. Obviously Morein hasn't done his homework. When Morein can
> tell us who these people are, we'll know that he's done at least a
> little homework. Until we know he's speaking from near-total
> ignorance.
>
> > People who
> > are more interested in finding the truth than proving a point.
> People with
> > deep pockets, so that Arny does not have to make "reasonable
> assumptions."
>
> In a previous post on this thread I gave the names of two $Billion
> USD corporations that rely on DBTs for listening test evaluations.
> One of them was evangelized for DBTs by our Canadian colleagues, and
> the other, far larger corporation was evangelized by us. How deep do
> the pockets have to be?
>
Ah, but they do it right. You do it WRONG, because you are a BAD SCIENTIST.
> > And as for my amplifiers? They are like musical instruments to me,
> and less
> > bulky than speakers. For my collection, I have picked examples of
> various
> > topologies. One type is notably absent: the bipolar class AB low
> bias. Many
> > of these amps, like the Crown DC series, the early Brystons, and
> Ranes, and
> > the early Aragons, have a sound that drives me out of the room.
> Naturally,
> > it annoys me that Arny says I should sit still and be happy,
> because "there
> > is no audible difference."
>
> More baseless extrapolations. My solution to the potential problem of
> power amps in listening was to develop a viable, accurate methodology
> that does not involve the use of any power amps other than the UUT.
>
David Hafler did it.
Uh-huh. But what else does it use, Arny? Show us the signal flow, with all
the devices and translations in the middle. Don't leave out any active
components.
> Straight wire is good.
>
> > And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
>
> Right. But given the self-contradictions, the straw men, and the
> grievously limited resources and research that Morein has brought
> to this discussion , and the clearly demonstrated fact that he
> hasn't done his homework, how would Morein know for sure?
>
Practically speaking, Morein can trust his ears, or trust Arny's gadget. But
Arny's gadget is so full of warts, boils, and pustules it is about as useful
as smallpox.
> I gave Morein a roadmap to straightening himself out earlier in this
> thread. He basically dismissed it. How much further do I have to go
> down his crooked road with him?
>
You dont, Arny. Brilliant mathematician that you are, you have "proven" all
your points. It's been good to see your logic at work in this simple task.
It saves time.
Stewart Pinkerton
<nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"randogbert" <rando...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com...
>> I just looked at the Outlaw audio website and they have a great price
>> on mono-block amps. So... if I decide to run line level cables from a
>> preamp, I'm assuming that would be better than running speaker wires?
Generally, yes, but there are swings and roundabouts. You'll have nbo
problems with speaker cable losses, but you *may* pick up some
interefernce on the interconnects. This depends on your home
environment and on the output impedance of your preamp.
>> Is there a loss or interference to be considered when running long
>> lengths of line level cables as well? And what is the best way to
>> split the pair coming from the preamp? Daisy chain through the amps?
>>
>Yes, there are problems.
>Unless you are using balanced lines, which require equipment that accept
>them, unacceptable levels of hum will result.
No, audible hum *may* result - big difference.
>Unbalanced lines are extremely susceptible to all kinds of effects.
What? Such as?.............
> You
>can't fix it by using good cable or positioning the lines.
Sure you can, in most cases. Don't assume that others are as incapable
as you! :-)
> The way the house
>is wired for power has an effect, and even putting everything on the same
>branch won't fix it.
OTOH, it may not be broke............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
Brundt) wrote:
>Well, I tend to have less strident oppinions about well constructed
>solid state amps, although I do agree there are large differences
>between some of them. When you buy any amp that has a huge number of
>channels, the power supply is going to suffer, as it is difficult in a
>standard sized box to fit a large enough supply for 12 channels. I
>think it is better to buy smaller 2 channel amps. I use the Knekt
>system at home and I have in one room what is called a roomamp that
>has the amp and a balanced audio knekt port built into a wall
>mountable or a behind wall mountable unit. You are better having small
>amps in each room and running balanced connections to them....
Indeed so, and B&W also make such an integrated system, with active
in-wall speakers.
Stewart Pinkerton
<nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>I built an ABX device. I built it out of a pile of brand new relays with
>nickel-palladium contacts. It has a remote control device, it has precision
>pots for level control, and it will do speaker and/or line level switching.
>
>The device is a failure. I took it over to a friend's house, who I am
>convinced hears differences which do not exist, being influenced by the
>physical appearance of the unit, etc. We tried it out, and discovered that
>the device was masking the differences. What I had neglected is the quality
>of the relay contacts. Nickel-palladium has too much resistance. There are
>rectification effects. I should have used silver-silver oxide, but they
>weren't locally available.
Actually, you should have used Ruthenium contacts, but they're even
more difficult to obtain.
>And as for my amplifiers? They are like musical instruments to me, and less
>bulky than speakers. For my collection, I have picked examples of various
>topologies. One type is notably absent: the bipolar class AB low bias.
Try an Arcam P85.
> Many
>of these amps, like the Crown DC series, the early Brystons, and Ranes, and
>the early Aragons, have a sound that drives me out of the room.
OTOH, others do not, since they sound the same as any other good amp.
> Naturally,
>it annoys me that Arny says I should sit still and be happy, because "there
>is no audible difference."
>
>And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
Indeed so. And there are also some which do not. Regrettably, many of
those which do not, are sold at extortionate prices and infest the
so-called 'high end'....................................
Stewart Pinkerton
<nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Jezmund Von Brundt" <jezm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:758c79f0.02122...@posting.google.com...
>> The RANE is not a high quality amplifier, at least as far as
>> sonically. This is not a bash on RANE, but it is just the specific
>> design brief for the M-3 & 6 are not for high quality, high bandwidth
>> amplifiers, they are compeating with Bogen PA amps. Right on RANE'S
>> website www.rane.com it tells you what they expect these amps to be
>> used for..
>> "The MA 6S is a six-channel amplifier designed to operate reliably in
>> commercial environments. The MA 6S was specifically designed for use
>> in:
>>
>
>And Arny Krueger has, if I understand him correctly, convinced himself that
>the RANE is sonically indistinguishable, or nearly so, from other, more
>expensive choices.
Do you have any contrary evidence?
>I submit this as support for my belief that Arny needs collaborators to go
>over his work, redo it with his participation, correct the procedural
>errors, and salvage the good 80% of his work which is unfortunately obscured
>by the 20% which isn't up to snuff.
And which part would you say the Rane opinion should be in? And why do
you say as much? Surely not from reading the opinions of others?
Stewart Pinkerton
<josephob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> No, it's not. Our purposes are disjoint.
>>
>> Your publication list is not valueless.
>> I don't dispute that some of your ideas are sound.
>> However, there is no evidence that you string the individual pieces together
>> in a coherent fashion.
There is when I read it.............
>> It's BAD SCIENCE, BADLY IMPLEMENTED.
And your evidence backing all this shouting is - what exactly?
>As opposed to arm-waiving, badly implimented?
>
>Give him some credit. He puts in many hours trying to actually
>apply some science to audio. His audio card test page is a great
>resource that I point people to all the time - because his observations
>tend to mirror what I and many others have found.
Agreed - an excellent resource.
>If he's getting this right, then his methods and science are
>likely correct. What he does with the data and the conclusions he
>draws from it... well, we are all free to argue on that. :)
As Arny has himself noted, he does not draw conclusions on his
comparison websites - he presents the available data and lets the
reader get on with it himself.
Robert Morein
[snip, for brevity]
>
> Again Morein, you are abjectly fact-challenged. I told you to go read
> a certain AES paper that clearly lists a few of my collaborators, one
> of whom is an AES Fellow. BTW I still associate with him (and many of
> the rest) frequently. I might even spend New Year's eve with his wife
> and extended family. I guess you should have taken my advice and
> catch up with your reading, eh?
>
> BTW, Morein, why not name the AES Fellow that is on YOUR advisory
> board?
>
> LOL!
>
>
toddys, I'm sure your research looks very coherent.
"LOL"
dave weil
wrote:
I'd explain why this is just another massive rationalization, but Mr.
Krueger is too much of a blockhead to understand.
dave weil
Like Krell of course.
dave weil
This is bullshit of course. His sound card lists are ordered from Best
to Worse with some soundcards not even getting any kind of
endorsement, as they fall below the line that reads: "The cards above
this Black line have performance that many find acceptable, at least
for casual listening". In fact, he is now touting a single sound card
as superior to all others, in a category all of its own.
Nice try though.
Robert Morein
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e0ef005...@news.fsnet.co.uk...
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 00:04:15 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> <nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jezmund Von Brundt" <jezm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:758c79f0.02122...@posting.google.com...
> >> The RANE is not a high quality amplifier, at least as far as
> >> sonically. This is not a bash on RANE, but it is just the specific
> >> design brief for the M-3 & 6 are not for high quality, high bandwidth
> >> amplifiers, they are compeating with Bogen PA amps. Right on RANE'S
> >> website www.rane.com it tells you what they expect these amps to be
> >> used for..
> >> "The MA 6S is a six-channel amplifier designed to operate reliably in
> >> commercial environments. The MA 6S was specifically designed for use
> >> in:
> >>
> >
> >And Arny Krueger has, if I understand him correctly, convinced himself
that
> >the RANE is sonically indistinguishable, or nearly so, from other, more
> >expensive choices.
>
> Do you have any contrary evidence?
>
You and I have had discussions where we have in fact noted peculiarities
of various amplifiers. You yourself have stated that the Parasound HCA-2200
is not a great treble amp.
At other times, you have hewed to the line that all amps sound the same.
You cannot have it both ways.
In this discussion, I have borrowed Jezmund Von Brundt's opinion of the
Rane.
There is a tendency, in flame-fests such as this, to get bogged down.
I rather like the concept of ABX. However, digitizing samples and subsequent
presentation through a PC sound card is AT BEST, a questionable assumption.
I think it's probably crap.
If I had an ABX setup personally available to me, so that I could test an
amp on the speakers I use, I would use it gladly. I would say a glad goodbye
to all the subjectivist contamination of the appearance of the equipment,
the thickness and finish of it's front panel, the shape of it's heatsinks,
and the pricetag.
But there are many different ways to physically implement ABX. It is not a
reasonable thing for Arny to quote the specs or measurements of the all the
parts in the system, and assume that the whole is the sum of the parts. This
is frequently untrue, because specs, being incomplete, incorrect, or
irrelevantly chosen, frequently fail to characterize the behavior of the
part in the system.
This is why complex systems, designed in the laboratory, still crash and
burn during the test phase. Mankind's development of abstract thinking has
cut misdirection to a minimum, but it by no means guarantees the qualities
of a complete system.
It cannot be assumed that the whole is the sum of the parts. That must be
proven.
In every logical system, there is a domailn of discourse.
For every physical theory, there is an area of applicability.
There is Newtonian physics, there is relativistic physics, and there's
quantum physics. Each has it's own domain.
The domain of Arny's methods has not been determined.
Arny's work is unfinished.
I don't like the way Arny has done it. Does this make me an extremist, or
unreasonable? I think not. I would do it differently. Do I have the time?
No.
Arny's system needs to be validated with resources that are unavailable to
him, both on the physical level, and with detached objectivism. Once the
domain of applicability is established, his work will have value, and he
will no longer have to occupy this small space, crowded with overanxious,
hyperemotional individuals, from which neither you, nor I, or Arny, can
completely exclude ourselves.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
I forgot, you were a salesman at Lafayette when you were 16.
Sorry for the omission.
I apologize.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
>
>
> You tell me about your personal DBT experiences with a MA-6 and I'll
> tell you about mine. BTW, see if you can pick out the MA-6 in this
> picture:
>
> http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/arny_k/upstairs-labthumb.jpg
>
>
Contrary to popular belief, that photo is NOT of
Arny's basement. That is a photo of the
office of the chief client of his consulting
business, the dentist he keeps talking about.
You can see the pc Arny cooked up for him.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
>
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:gHBP9.682$AH...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > (1) These ideas aren't just my ideas
>
> Hitler had lots of company too.
> >
Tor is his Himmler
Oberlander is his Hess
Nousaine is his Goebbels
B Fuhrmann
Now that you recognize this garbage thread for what it has become, how about
dropping it or at least dropping comp.home.automation from the replies. The
other groups may appreciate useless drivel, CHA doesn't.
Rich Andrews
I call "Godwin"!
I Win!
r
--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
Arny Krueger
"sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
Actually 13-19.
> Sorry for the omission.
You still left some things that you know out.
> I apologize.
Try again and see if you can get it right this time.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
You are right
Being a teenage Lafayette sales trainee does qualify you
as an audio engineer.
Joseph Oberlander
> rando...@yahoo.com (randogbert) wrote in message news:<3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com>...
> So... if I decide to run line level cables from a
>
>>preamp, I'm assuming that would be better than running speaker wires?
>>lengths of line level cables as well? And what is the best way to
>>split the pair coming from the preamp?
>
>
> or another. Long runs of line level cables are very suseptable to hum
> and signal degredation. Line Level cables are probably the best way
> to connect component in less than 5m distances, however after that you
> are relying on good luck that it will work properly.
Good microphone cables can go 50-100ft easily, but they are shielded.
They do work, though. Balanced is better, of course, but not required
if you put an isolation brick or simmilar on both amplifiers. My father
did this and there's no hum in the kitchen - a run of about 40 ft.
Jezmund Von Brundt
demolition site, or a room in one of those houses is the Ghetto where
they find kids living 2 feet deep in filth... I give up, I can't pick
out anything in that mess, other than some obsolete test equipment, a
few 70's stereo components from Montgomery Ward and a broken
computer...
JVB
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<GeCP9.687$oM....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
randogbert
> I'm not going to repeat myself just to be ignored again.
Huh? I'm not trying to ignore anybody. I told you guys I was clueless
to all this and my tiny brain can only absorb all this bombardment of
information (valuable, btw) in so many chunks (71 messages and
counting!). I think that either you guys are giving me too much
credit, *or* a select few are enjoying hearing themselves joust with
each other in a language that is mostly greek to me in an effort to
use this thread as a platform for oneupsmanship. I'm hoping it's the
former as I really appreciate the responses... at least the parts I
can bite off.
BTW, I have my own specialties; granted, audio technology is not one
of them. However, please don't confuse my ignorance with a lack of
aptitude. Thanks. I've managed quite well running my own consultancy
:) You have to admit, I did keep this out of rec.audio.high-end in an
attempt to avoid getting crushed!
My plan is to study the many options presented, but for future
planning. Presently I think I'll keep it simple in the main room with
the hooks for expansion. I didn't realize it needed to be this
complicated so it's time to regroup and decide whether to get in deep
or pull back on the reins.
I can tell you what I won't do is hire a professional. That's not my
style. I like the physical and mental exercise of learning, applying
and basically doing it myself. :) Not too proud to ask around tho...
and again, I truly appreciate the tips.
Randy
Jezmund Von Brundt
for in-wall units for secondary rooms. I am unaware of any active,
amplified B&W speakers for this application or additional electronic
hardware to facilitate a multiroom from them. I would certainly be
interested in hearing it if it does exist. I could not find it on
their website either, is it a new product?
pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<3e0eee62...@news.fsnet.co.uk>...
Stewart Pinkerton
Brundt) wrote:
>I have heard the B&W CWM inwall speakers which are excelent choices
>for in-wall units for secondary rooms. I am unaware of any active,
>amplified B&W speakers for this application or additional electronic
>hardware to facilitate a multiroom from them. I would certainly be
>interested in hearing it if it does exist. I could not find it on
>their website either, is it a new product?
I saw such a multi-room system at the London Show a couple of years
ago, it's not a range that I have any personal interest in, so I can't
tell you much about it, except that it used balanced connections and
small local amplifiers, with IR remote controllers.
>pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:<3e0eee62...@news.fsnet.co.uk>...
>
>> Indeed so, and B&W also make such an integrated system, with active
>> in-wall speakers.
--
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
Nope, they *do* sound the same as any other good amp - plus of course
they don't care how nasty the speaker load gets. My own KSA-50 shows
no sonic difference at all when I put a 2-ohm resistor in parallel
with my speakers (which are already a heavy 3-ohm load!).
You are of course just trolling as usual, Vile, since you know that I
was referring to SETs and the like.
Stewart Pinkerton
<nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
What has this to do with the Rane?
>At other times, you have hewed to the line that all amps sound the same.
That is a lie.
>You cannot have it both ways.
I don't - see above.
>In this discussion, I have borrowed Jezmund Von Brundt's opinion of the
>Rane.
So, in fact you criticise Arny's methods, yet you are just taking the
opinion of a well-known rabid Linnie? That's BAD SCIENCE.
>There is a tendency, in flame-fests such as this, to get bogged down.
>
>I rather like the concept of ABX. However, digitizing samples and subsequent
>presentation through a PC sound card is AT BEST, a questionable assumption.
>I think it's probably crap.
I think it's of doubtful utility for such thinga as comparing amps,
but likely very good for determining thresholds of audible detection
of bit-depth, sampling rate etc.......
>In every logical system, there is a domailn of discourse.
>For every physical theory, there is an area of applicability.
>There is Newtonian physics, there is relativistic physics, and there's
>quantum physics. Each has it's own domain.
>The domain of Arny's methods has not been determined.
Mere sophistry.
>Arny's work is unfinished.
Isn't everyone's?
>I don't like the way Arny has done it. Does this make me an extremist, or
>unreasonable? I think not. I would do it differently. Do I have the time?
>No.
>
>Arny's system needs to be validated with resources that are unavailable to
>him, both on the physical level, and with detached objectivism. Once the
>domain of applicability is established, his work will have value, and he
>will no longer have to occupy this small space, crowded with overanxious,
>hyperemotional individuals, from which neither you, nor I, or Arny, can
>completely exclude ourselves.
Sure, but OTOH, where is the single shred of reliable and repeatable
evidence supporting the 'subjectivist' viewpoint?
Arny Krueger
because he's never seen one in real life, and he's too stoopid to
check Rane's web site to find out what one looks like.
LOL!
zmund Von Brundt" <jezm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:758c79f0.02122...@posting.google.com...
> Is this some kind of joke? the picture you sent looks like either a
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2002 16:41:53 -0800, jezm...@hotmail.com (Jezmund Von
> Brundt) wrote:
>
>
>>I have heard the B&W CWM inwall speakers which are excelent choices
>>for in-wall units for secondary rooms. I am unaware of any active,
>>amplified B&W speakers for this application or additional electronic
>>hardware to facilitate a multiroom from them. I would certainly be
>>interested in hearing it if it does exist. I could not find it on
>>their website either, is it a new product?
>
>
> I saw such a multi-room system at the London Show a couple of years
> ago, it's not a range that I have any personal interest in,
Naturally, because they cost money.
trotsky
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:57:30 -0600, dave weil <dw...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:20:40 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:50:12 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>>><nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>>And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
>>>
>>>Indeed so. And there are also some which do not. Regrettably, many of
>>>those which do not, are sold at extortionate prices and infest the
>>>so-called 'high end'....................................
>>
>>Like Krell of course.
>
>
> Nope, they *do* sound the same as any other good amp - plus of course
> they don't care how nasty the speaker load gets. My own KSA-50 shows
> no sonic difference at all when I put a 2-ohm resistor in parallel
> with my speakers
What snake oil bullshit reason would you have for doing that?
Arny Krueger
correction:
> IOW Jezmund can't ID the MA-6 sitting in the middle of the picture
> because he's never seen one in real life, and he's too stoopid to
> check Rane's web site to find out what one looks like.
Jezumund has granted an opinion about what a MA-6 sounds like, but he
doesn't recognize one when he sees it. What a maroon!
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
> IOW Jezmund can't ID the MA-6 sinntein in the middle of the picture
> because he's never seen one in real life, and he's too stoopid to
> check Rane's web site to find out what one looks like.
>
> LOL!
>
How did "sinntein' get past your spellchecker?
Oh, I forgot. You are too 'stoopid' and lazy to use one.
And you are a hypocrite.
You screwed the pooch only one minute before blasting
Jezmund for his spelling error in the Densen thread!
Good work!!!!
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
>
> Sure, but OTOH, where is the single shred of reliable and repeatable
> evidence supporting the 'subjectivist' viewpoint?
> --
>
The subjectivist viewpoint, being what it is, does
not require such. It is merely opinion, and has no
pretensions of meeting any scientific qualifications.
I wouldn't use it to send a rocket to the moon,
but subjectivism is just fine for purchasing
audio equipment.
Arny Krueger
"sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
>
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e0ff6c7....@news.fsnet.co.uk...
> >
> > Sure, but OTOH, where is the single shred of reliable and
repeatable
> > evidence supporting the 'subjectivist' viewpoint?
> The subjectivist viewpoint, being what it is, does
> not require such.
Now there's a logical dodge if I ever saw one.
> It is merely opinion, and has no
> pretensions of meeting any scientific qualifications.
But yet subjectivists use their opinions to criticize scientific
qualifications.
This is known as a "logic-tight box". Subjectivists seem to live in
this smug little world where their beliefs are unassailable because
they are just opinions, but they can assail anybody else's beliefs
without any supporting evidence or logic.
> I wouldn't use it to send a rocket to the moon,
The best-known time NASA followed subjects over science in the space
program resulted in the last flight of the Challenger.
> but subjectivism is just fine for purchasing
> audio equipment.
No, subjectivism is just fine for SELLING audio equipment.
Hey, high end audio as we know it is based on subjectivism, so
subjectivism HAS to be good!
Arny Krueger
"sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
I posted a correction before you made this post, fool.
Arny Krueger
>
> "sockpuppet "Yustabe"" <idk...@comcast.ent> wrote in message
> news:3e104983$1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
> > I wouldn't use it to send a rocket to the moon,
correction:
> The best-known time NASA followed subjectivism over science in the
Jezmund Von Brundt
identify anything from that blurry picture of what appears to be a
horrible accident in an outhouse... I would guess since it is the only
box that is the right shape that it is the black blob underneath your
broken Montgomery Ward tape deck... Look at you picture and tell me
whether there is anything distingushing in the picture about that
black blob that would tell you it is the Rane. I am sure it does a
perfectly adequate job of driving your Soundesign "Reference"
speakers..
JVB
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<FVVP9.98$lg3...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>...
dave weil
Pinkerton) wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:57:30 -0600, dave weil <dw...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:20:40 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:50:12 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>>><nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
>>>
>>>Indeed so. And there are also some which do not. Regrettably, many of
>>>those which do not, are sold at extortionate prices and infest the
>>>so-called 'high end'....................................
>>
>>Like Krell of course.
>
>Nope, they *do* sound the same as any other good amp
<snip>
So why shouldn't you have just bought another "good amp" that would
have provided the same wattage at about 1/5th of the price that you
paid USED for your Krell? And why should anyone pay Krell's
"extortionist" new prices?
dave weil
wrote:
What a maroon! Can't even spell subjectivism! Where's that
mind-reading "spell-checker" that you demand of others?
LOL!
Jezmund Von Brundt
story of Arny's entire adult (such as it is) life. Also, don't sell
yourself short, your brain is much larger than his....
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:43:04 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:57:30 -0600, dave weil <dw...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:20:40 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:50:12 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>>>><nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed so. And there are also some which do not. Regrettably, many of
>>>>those which do not, are sold at extortionate prices and infest the
>>>>so-called 'high end'....................................
>>>
>>>Like Krell of course.
>>
>>Nope, they *do* sound the same as any other good amp
>
><snip>
>
>So why shouldn't you have just bought another "good amp" that would
>have provided the same wattage at about 1/5th of the price that you
>paid USED for your Krell?
You can't buy a *good* 100 watt amp new for Ł200 (the KSA-50 puts out
195 watts continuous into a 4-ohm load from 20Hz to 20kHz, so it's not
really a '50 watt' amp). Also, my Krell will provide exactly the same
sound quality into any load down to less than 1 ohm, at which load it
actually pumps out close to 600 watts /channel continuous!
Sure it's overkill for most speakers, but mine are a pretty severe
load, and having that kind of reserve capability is quite comforting
in a device which I use as a reference. Knowing what I do now, I'd
happily swap it for something equally capable but more powerful, such
as a Meridian 557, Bryston 4B-ST or Adcom 5802.
> And why should anyone pay Krell's
>"extortionist" new prices?
Beats me! :-)
BTW, I don't regard Krell prices as 'extortionate', since I'm not
aware of any cheaper amp which has the same overall performance
envelope. This is a lot more than you can say for *any* tube amp, let
alone the risible SETs!
dave weil
Pinkerton) wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:35:43 -0600, dave weil <dw...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:43:04 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:57:30 -0600, dave weil <dw...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:20:40 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:50:12 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>>>>><nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
>>>>>
>>>>>Indeed so. And there are also some which do not. Regrettably, many of
>>>>>those which do not, are sold at extortionate prices and infest the
>>>>>so-called 'high end'....................................
>>>>
>>>>Like Krell of course.
>>>
>>>Nope, they *do* sound the same as any other good amp
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>So why shouldn't you have just bought another "good amp" that would
>>have provided the same wattage at about 1/5th of the price that you
>>paid USED for your Krell?
>
>You can't buy a *good* 100 watt amp new for £200 (the KSA-50 puts out
>195 watts continuous into a 4-ohm load from 20Hz to 20kHz, so it's not
>really a '50 watt' amp). Also, my Krell will provide exactly the same
>sound quality into any load down to less than 1 ohm, at which load it
>actually pumps out close to 600 watts /channel continuous!
A 70 watt Rotel RB 1050 RETAILS for $499. I'll grant that that is
actually a little more than 1/5th (more like 1/3). But that's just one
example (and you could likely get one for about $400, which brings it
a bit closer to the 1/5th figure). Kenwood had a 120w X 2 (8 ohms) amp
back in '99 for example that retailed for $450. I'm pretty sure that
they had more modest amps for even less. I'm sure that you could find
plenty of "good amps" in the 50 wpc @ 8 ohm from all of those "good
amp companies" like Yamaha (something like an M45, which you can find
used for about $150). It's a "good amp", so it should sound 'exactly"
like your Krell.
Besides, it's begging the question when you realize that the Krell is
actually probably equivalent to about $4000 in today's money (the
thing *is* about 20 years old after all). That's a heck of a lot of
money for the wattage, right? That's getting close to SET territory.
<chuckle>
So, you're saying that the Krell will provide "exactly the same sound
quality down to less than 1 ohm", eh? Even allowing for the fact that
you probably haven't done a dbt to determine this (it's likely just a
placebo effect), your implication is that other "good amps" won't have
this capability. THEREFORE, this amp sounds different than "any other
good amp".
Face it, you like the big, industrial, high-end look of the Krell.
That's what drove your decision, right? After all, I talk shortly
about an amp that will certainly outperform your rig for a lot less
(and it's got that industrial look but it doesn't have that
purposeful, big-handled, brushed chrome look).
You lose.
Again.
>Sure it's overkill for most speakers, but mine are a pretty severe
>load, and having that kind of reserve capability is quite comforting
>in a device which I use as a reference. Knowing what I do now, I'd
>happily swap it for something equally capable but more powerful, such
>as a Meridian 557, Bryston 4B-ST or Adcom 5802.
Or even a NAD or a 200 wpc Denon. <snigger>
Hell, you could probably find a very stable used Soundcraftsmen amp
from the same era (200 wpc/600wpc into 4 ohms) for about $300. Buy two
of them and bridge them and you've got 600 wpc into 8 ohms). I'll bet
that it works FINE into 1 ohm.
>> And why should anyone pay Krell's
>>"extortionist" new prices?
>
>Beats me! :-)
>
>BTW, I don't regard Krell prices as 'extortionate', since I'm not
>aware of any cheaper amp which has the same overall performance
>envelope.
In other words, it dosn't "sound like any other good amp".
Right.
> This is a lot more than you can say for *any* tube amp, let
>alone the risible SETs!
Well, it depends. Of course I wouldn't match an SET with your MLs
(that's what you've got, right)? That's just common sense.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
After all is said and done, the fact that you actually posted
such an egregious spelling error, in a post railing against
another poster's spelling error, was an exemplary example
of your hypocrisy.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
> >
> The best-known time NASA followed subjects over science in the
space
> program resulted in the last flight of the Challenger.
>
The best known one was the time before that was when they saved Apollo
13.
sockpuppet "Yustabe"
"dave weil" <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r4u01v86np6stnh74...@4ax.com...
Arny is to stupid to recognize his own mistakes.
He gets clued in by emails from one of his few remaining sycophants.
Jezmund Von Brundt
sound exactly the same. Why do you feel that the outlaw amps are subpar?,
They are less expensive than the alternatives and offer similar or better
specs. If they all sound the same then the outlaw is the better deal. Or is
it that you are completely subjective in your recommendations, and they
really have no bearing in science at all. If it is not one of your pet
brands, or you didn't come up with it.news:ZSBP9.683$QJ....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "randogbert" <rando...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bb21415.02122...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I just looked at the Outlaw audio website and they have a great
> price
> > on mono-block amps.
>
> I would say, "nothing special". If I was going to buy ca. 200 wpc
> rackable amps, I'd go for Mackie M1400s. You're going to hide these
> away so the Mackie's fans aren't an issue. The Mackies should cost
> you slightly less, they are significantly more powerful, and they
> have balanced inputs. Furthermore, the Mackies have been on the
> market for over 3 years and are therefore better debugged.
>
> >So... if I decide to run line level cables from a
> > preamp, I'm assuming that would be better than running speaker
> wires?
>
> and saw the nice discussion of ground loops. I don't think they put
> it there for the fun of it! Balanced I/O tends to help with ground
> loops. LOTS!
>
> > Is there a loss or interference to be considered when running long
> > lengths of line level cables as well?
>
> particularly at the end of long signal lines (say 20-50 feet or more)
> you use a distribution amplifier which is a line level signal
> amplifier with many buffered outputs.
>
> >And what is the best way to
> > split the pair coming from the preamp?
>
>
> >Daisy chain through the amps?
>
> Absolutely not!
>
> > What's cool about that is maximum flexibility. I would still need
> > volume controls between the amps and the speakers, but that's no
> big
> > deal. I'm still not sure how to add subwoofers into the separate
> zones
> > should I decide to, or if I'll need any type of other EQ
> controls...
> > any comments here?
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:31:35 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>Pinkerton) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:35:43 -0600, dave weil <dw...@comcast.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:43:04 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 08:57:30 -0600, dave weil <dw...@comcast.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:20:40 GMT, pat...@dircon.co.uk (Stewart
>>>>>Pinkerton) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:50:12 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>>>>>><nospa...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>And there are plenty of amps that just...sound...the...same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Indeed so. And there are also some which do not. Regrettably, many of
>>>>>>those which do not, are sold at extortionate prices and infest the
>>>>>>so-called 'high end'....................................
>>>>>
>>>>>Like Krell of course.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, they *do* sound the same as any other good amp
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>So why shouldn't you have just bought another "good amp" that would
>>>have provided the same wattage at about 1/5th of the price that you
>>>paid USED for your Krell?
>>
>>You can't buy a *good* 100 watt amp new for Ł200 (the KSA-50 puts out
>>195 watts continuous into a 4-ohm load from 20Hz to 20kHz, so it's not
>>really a '50 watt' amp). Also, my Krell will provide exactly the same
>>sound quality into any load down to less than 1 ohm, at which load it
>>actually pumps out close to 600 watts /channel continuous!
>
>A 70 watt Rotel RB 1050 RETAILS for $499. I'll grant that that is
>actually a little more than 1/5th (more like 1/3). But that's just one
>example (and you could likely get one for about $400, which brings it
>a bit closer to the 1/5th figure). Kenwood had a 120w X 2 (8 ohms) amp
>back in '99 for example that retailed for $450. I'm pretty sure that
>they had more modest amps for even less. I'm sure that you could find
>plenty of "good amps" in the 50 wpc @ 8 ohm from all of those "good
>amp companies" like Yamaha (something like an M45, which you can find
>used for about $150). It's a "good amp", so it should sound 'exactly"
>like your Krell.
No, since none of those amps will withstand being played loudly into
my 3-ohm speakers. For some with lighter speaker loads, such amps may
indeed be perfectly adequate.
BTW, the then-current Yamaha AX-570 did *not* sound the same as my
Krell, although the Audiolab 8000P and Hafler XL-600 did. I haven't
tried the Rotel RB 1050, but its bigger brother, the 1090, is an
excellent amp. Of course, we're back up the price range a bit for that
one.
>Besides, it's begging the question when you realize that the Krell is
>actually probably equivalent to about $4000 in today's money (the
>thing *is* about 20 years old after all). That's a heck of a lot of
>money for the wattage, right? That's getting close to SET territory.
><chuckle>
Not if you consider the rated design wattage, which is 400 watts per
channel *continuous* into 1 ohm.
>So, you're saying that the Krell will provide "exactly the same sound
>quality down to less than 1 ohm", eh?
Yes - I've tried it.
> Even allowing for the fact that
>you probably haven't done a dbt to determine this (it's likely just a
>placebo effect),
Nope, it's quite a trivial DBT job, simply strapping 2 ohm resistors
across the speakers.
>your implication is that other "good amps" won't have
>this capability. THEREFORE, this amp sounds different than "any other
>good amp".
You seem to forget the crucial pre-condition of 'below the clipping
point'.
>Face it, you like the big, industrial, high-end look of the Krell.
Nope, I wish it was half the size and a third of the weight - like a
Chord 1200C!
>That's what drove your decision, right?
Wrong. It was the only one available to me at the time, which sounded
good *and* was unperturbed by driving my Apogees. The Hafler XL-600
had way too much fan noise, otherwise that would have been my
purchase.
> After all, I talk shortly
>about an amp that will certainly outperform your rig for a lot less
>(and it's got that industrial look but it doesn't have that
>purposeful, big-handled, brushed chrome look).
>
>You lose.
>
>Again.
Vile, I've noticed that it's always losers like you and Trots who
award themselves victory - since no one else is likely to.
BTW, learn some basics before you make such silly claims - the
Soundcraftsman you mention has nothing like the low-load tolerance of
a Krell. OTOH, it *may* be a very fine amplifier, I haven't tried it
with my speakers.
>>Sure it's overkill for most speakers, but mine are a pretty severe
>>load, and having that kind of reserve capability is quite comforting
>>in a device which I use as a reference. Knowing what I do now, I'd
>>happily swap it for something equally capable but more powerful, such
>>as a Meridian 557, Bryston 4B-ST or Adcom 5802.
>
>Or even a NAD or a 200 wpc Denon. <snigger>
The 250W Denon POA 9000 monoblocks sounded like a POS in the same DBTs
mentioned above - a big disappointment, since they'd been getting rave
reviews from the ragazine scribblers.
>Hell, you could probably find a very stable used Soundcraftsmen amp
>from the same era (200 wpc/600wpc into 4 ohms) for about $300. Buy two
>of them and bridge them and you've got 600 wpc into 8 ohms). I'll bet
>that it works FINE into 1 ohm.
That statement simply displays your total ignorance of audio. Those
numbers don't stack up, and a bridged amp is the *last* thing you want
for a low impedance load.
>>> And why should anyone pay Krell's
>>>"extortionist" new prices?
>>
>>Beats me! :-)
>>
>>BTW, I don't regard Krell prices as 'extortionate', since I'm not
>>aware of any cheaper amp which has the same overall performance
>>envelope.
>
>In other words, it dosn't "sound like any other good amp".
Sure it does - up to the clipping point. That point tends to be a lot
higher for Krell amps................
>Right.
>
>> This is a lot more than you can say for *any* tube amp, let
>>alone the risible SETs!
>
>Well, it depends. Of course I wouldn't match an SET with your MLs
>(that's what you've got, right)? That's just common sense.
Get your facts right, cretin, I use Apogee Duetta Signatures. Further,
I wouldn't match an SET amp with *anything*..........