opinions on carver amps?
reg...@iaw.on.ca
How about some opinions on Carver amps:
bottom end, clarity, dynamics, sundstage, imaging etc.
Feel free to mention what other amps you are comparing the Carvers to.
How does a CARVER tfm 35 compare to a NAD 2200 or an ACURUS a250 in the above
categories?
Thanks
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Gene Steinberg
>How about some opinions on Carver amps:
>bottom end, clarity, dynamics, sundstage, imaging etc.
>Feel free to mention what other amps you are comparing the Carvers to.
>How does a CARVER tfm 35 compare to a NAD 2200 or an ACURUS a250 in the above
>categories?
>Thanks
The sonic qualities you describe are largely not part of what a modern
solid state amp would provide (they are, in fact, speaker qualities,
largely). Assuming a flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise,
high damping factor, and not clipping, none of the amps you list should
have a distinct sonic signature. There are other factors to consider here,
such as power output, price, features, appearance, product reliability,
that sort of thing.
Peace,
Gene
GEORGE FRITSCHMANN III
Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<gsteinberg-21...@1cust247.tnt6.lax3.da.uu.net>...
Carver amps are arguably the best in they're price
range. I have found them to excel in every "real world" regard.
George......
Norm Strong
In a previous article, reg...@iaw.on.ca () says:
>How about some opinions on Carver amps:
>bottom end, clarity, dynamics, sundstage, imaging etc.
>Feel free to mention what other amps you are comparing the Carvers to.
>How does a CARVER tfm 35 compare to a NAD 2200 or an ACURUS a250 in the above
>categories?
I hate to say this, but I don't think I'd buy a new Carver product. I
seriously doubt they will be in business a year from now. But i hope I'm
wrong.
--
Norm Strong (no...@scn.org)
2528 3lst S. Seattle WA 98l44
Ng
While I generally believe that there are little to no sonic differences
in most amps, I did find the older Carver amps to be noticably different
(rougher?) sounding than other amps. Perhaps this is due to their
uncoventional design?
Ho Leung Ng
hol...@ucla.edu
--
Edward Derson Hou
On 21 Apr 1998, Ng wrote:
> While I generally believe that there are little to no sonic differences
> in most amps, I did find the older Carver amps to be noticably different
> (rougher?) sounding than other amps. Perhaps this is due to their
> uncoventional design?
Solid state amps in the SAME price range and output stage designs sound
very similar. However, if you confuse a $300 NAD with a Spectral DMA or
VTL Wotan monoblocks, you are most likely using Bose 141s... ;-)
-Eddie
Peter Corey
On 21 Apr 98 16:31:02 GMT
GEORGE FRITSCHMANN III wrote:
> Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <gsteinberg-21...@1cust247.tnt6.lax3.da.uu.net>...
> > In article <6hhmsu$2ro$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, reg...@iaw.on.ca wrote:
> >
> > >How about some opinions on Carver amps:
> > >bottom end, clarity, dynamics, sundstage, imaging etc.
> > >Feel free to mention what other amps you are comparing the Carvers to.
> > >How does a CARVER tfm 35 compare to a NAD 2200 or an ACURUS >
> >categories?
> > >Thanks
> >
> > The sonic qualities you describe are largely not part of what a modern
> > solid state amp would provide (they are, in fact, speaker qualities,
> > largely). Assuming a flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise,
> > high damping factor, and not clipping, none of the amps you list should
> > have a distinct sonic signature. There are other factors to consider
> > here, such as power output, price, features, appearance, product >
> reliability, that sort of thing.
> >
> > Peace,
> > Gene
> >
> Carver amps are arguably the best in they're price
> range. I have found them to excel in every "real world" regard.
> George......
Two rights in a row !
And a "Ditto" !
--
^ __
0 || --
Jay B. Haider
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 18:32:38 GMT, no...@scn.org (Norm Strong) wrote:
>I hate to say this, but I don't think I'd buy a new Carver product. I
>seriously doubt they will be in business a year from now. But i hope I'm
>wrong.
Ah, well, there's plenty of good midpriced equipment to pick up the
slack caused by Carver's death. Who needs or wants a marque tainted by
such boondoggles as "Power Steering" when others rely on good build
and good pricing (for hifi), like Adcom, Parasound, and Rotel.
I'd say that Carver shoulda gone into speakers, because the
original Amazing was probably their best product ever, but the
Sunfire True "Subwoofer" proves that this course wouldn't have been
much better.....
Jay B. Haider
Class of 2000, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs (Georgia Tech)
"When you're wrong, don't be upset, but rather rejoice, for you're
about to learn something." -Dr James Herod
"Vanity; stupidity; duplicity; lack of ability: these need not impede
a successful political career" - Bagehot, from "The Economist"
Phoenix
On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:11:28 GMT, "Terry Demol"
<(nospam)tcd...@chilli.net.au> wrote:
>
>
><snips>
>>
>The sonic qualities he described ARE largely attributed
>to modern SS amps, speakers, pre amps, DACs, and every thing
>in the signal path.
>I've spend hours changing topologies of amps, DACs, pre amps, (all SS)
>aswell as speakers, and I'm actually surprised myself how much
>difference everything makes.
>
>Tez.
>
Funny how that works. You should see how surprised an old college
roomate tweakophile I went to school with was when I revealed that I'd
changed his $65/meter speaker cable with 18-gauge lamp chord two weeks
prior. He was quite pissed at the time, but we now laugh at how we
hear what we wanna hear with these "startling" differences. Ah, only
in never-never-land is it possible....
Phoenix
Steve Schnugg, Jr.
Jay B. Haider wrote in message <6hjatf$b...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> Ah, well, there's plenty of good midpriced equipment to pick up the
>slack caused by Carver's death. Who needs or wants a marque tainted by
>such boondoggles as "Power Steering" when others rely on good build
>and good pricing (for hifi), like Adcom, Parasound, and Rotel.
> I'd say that Carver shoulda gone into speakers, because the
>original Amazing was probably their best product ever, but the
>Sunfire True "Subwoofer" proves that this course wouldn't have been
>much better.....
Actually, reputable audio companies are using various Carver design
implementations in their products (Witness Velodyne with their new series of
subs based on small footprint designs a la True Subwoofer) And power
steering was and still is a great idea if implemented correctly for
multichannel usage given the varying power necessities of different channels
at any given instant. I do not own Carver, never have and most likely never
will, but the company has left its mark on audio design, for better or
worse. One thing I don't like is the slow product development by Carver for
surround decoding. The surround preamps simply are not state of the art.
>"When you're wrong, don't be upset, but rather rejoice, for you're
>about to learn something." -Dr James Herod
BTW, I never had Herod, but I did use his class notes for 1509, much to my
chagrin :)
I rejoiced a lot that quarter
Steve Schnugg
Georgia Tech College of Electrical Engineering, '2001 (or so)
Powell
>GEORGE FRITSCHMANN III wrote in
>Carver amps are arguably the best in they're
>price range. I have found them to excel in
>every "real world" regard.
> George......
>
Having owned three power amps and two pre-amps in the
past... I enthusiastically agree!
Chuck Ross
> While I generally believe that there are little to no sonic differences
> in most amps, I did find the older Carver amps to be noticably different
> (rougher?) sounding than other amps. Perhaps this is due to their
> uncoventional design?
>
>
> Ho Leung Ng
> hol...@ucla.edu
>
> --
I mostly agree. I also believe most of Carver's other products sound
spectrally wierd, including many CD players, preamps and power amps.
This is interesting in light of the fact that I consider Carver to
be an excellent designer with much creative talent.
Peter Corey
On 21 Apr 1998 21:43:09 GMT
Ng wrote:
> While I generally believe that there are little to no sonic differences
> in most amps, I did find the older Carver amps to be noticably different
> (rougher?) sounding than other amps. Perhaps this is due to their
> uncoventional design?
>
> Ho Leung Ng
> hol...@ucla.edu
Hi !
It would be interesting if you specified the conditions under which you
made that determination.
I owned a Phase Linear 700B for at least 15 years without any problem
whatsoever (attention Krell and Levinson owners)_and have A/B'd it
against Mac's and others numerous times along with friends ..
No difference at all !
That also included driving 3 Pair of KLH Model Nines and Infinity Stats
(whose panels blew practically ever week) until Nudell mercifully
folded the design (which incidentally received repeated accolades from
guess what publication ) .
Also included every top of the line Infinity Betas.
I now own a Carver TFM 75 with absolutely identical sound !.
Very slight increase in headroom which never seems to require accessing
and I drive the hell out my Carver Amazings on Symphonic and Choral
works without any audible strain in a 6000 cu ft listening room
In my experience it's not possible to compare amplifiers ( or for that
matter any equipment ) except simultaneously, and under blind
conditions.
Hopefully this will not encounter the wrath of "subjectivists" .
To quote Stewart Pinkerton who ( after defining the various types of
power outages Black, Brown and White ) added a new one apropos to
some members in the group.
" I guess a yellow out would be a typical 'golden ear' reaction to an
invitation to a level-matched blind test........ :-)
Regards;
^ __
0 || --
Adam Fuller
Hmm. I owned a Carver TFM-35 for six years. Whatever the motive for making a
large, powerful solid state amp sound like a tube amp, it was a stupid idea.
You like fuzzy treble and somnambulant mids? Do you love weak bass that
basically sounds like the output of a typical PA speaker? Then Carver amps
are for you. I used to walk into dealer's showrooms and wonder why the f---
my system didn't have that kind of punch. So I upgraded speakers, CD player,
preamp, and cable. Some improvement, but not much. Still warm n' fuzzy
highs. Then I got rid of my Carver amp! Damn, there was bass extension!
Damn, there was precision in the treble and immediacy in the midrange! Do
yourself a favor and look at Adcom, NAD, Rotel, Parasound, McCormack,
Classe, Bryston, B&K, Hafler, McIntosh, and several others before even
considering Carver.
Adam
Peter Corey wrote in message <6hk2ji$l...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Adam Kuan
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> In article <6hhmsu$2ro$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, reg...@iaw.on.ca wrote:
>
> >How about some opinions on Carver amps:
> >bottom end, clarity, dynamics, sundstage, imaging etc.
> >Feel free to mention what other amps you are comparing the Carvers to.
> >How does a CARVER tfm 35 compare to a NAD 2200 or an ACURUS a250 in the above
> >categories?
> >Thanks
>
> The sonic qualities you describe are largely not part of what a modern
> solid state amp would provide (they are, in fact, speaker qualities,
> largely). Assuming a flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise,
> high damping factor, and not clipping, none of the amps you list should
> have a distinct sonic signature. There are other factors to consider here,
> such as power output, price, features, appearance, product reliability,
> that sort of thing.
>
In other words, all amps that have "a flat frequency response, low distortion, low
noise,
high damping factor, and not clipping" sound THE SAME.
Response prediction:
1) "I didn't say that...."
2) "That's not what I meant."
3) "You taking words out of context."
4) "You have reading comprehension problem."
5) " So what? All I've said are factually true and they can't be rebutted."
Have I left out anything? Of course I did, only Gene knowd the truth.
> Peace,
> Gene
Gene Steinberg
>In other words, all amps that have "a flat frequency response, low
distortion, low
>noise,
>high damping factor, and not clipping" sound THE SAME.
>Response prediction:
>1) "I didn't say that...."
>2) "That's not what I meant."
>3) "You taking words out of context."
>4) "You have reading comprehension problem."
>5) " So what? All I've said are factually true and they can't be rebutted."
>
>Have I left out anything? Of course I did, only Gene knowd the truth.
Yes, number 6. They will sound the same (so long as they are running
according to those specs) because there is no mechanism to provide an
audible difference.
Do you get it now, or does it have to be spelled out to you a little more
clearly.
And now that you've made incorrect guesses as to what I'd say, how about
showing us evidence, if you have any, where it might be wrong. Don't have
any evidence? Didn't think you did....
Gene Steinberg
In article <XHg%.1280$p5.60...@news.itd.umich.edu>, "Adam Fuller"
<ad...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>Hmm. I owned a Carver TFM-35 for six years. Whatever the motive for making a
>large, powerful solid state amp sound like a tube amp, it was a stupid idea.
>You like fuzzy treble and somnambulant mids? Do you love weak bass that
>basically sounds like the output of a typical PA speaker? Then Carver amps
>are for you.
Could you explain why you stuck with an amplifier for 6 years if you hated
it so much?
Talk about stupid!
In any case, the sonic characteristics you mention would seem more
appropriate to the speakers than the amp, as the tube effects are subtle.
If anything, it would seem to indicate the amp was defective.
Peace,
Gene
Adam Fuller
Gene Steinberg wrote in message ...
>In article <XHg%.1280$p5.60...@news.itd.umich.edu>, "Adam Fuller"
><ad...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>>Hmm. I owned a Carver TFM-35 for six years. Whatever the motive for making
a
>>large, powerful solid state amp sound like a tube amp, it was a stupid
idea.
>>You like fuzzy treble and somnambulant mids? Do you love weak bass that
>>basically sounds like the output of a typical PA speaker? Then Carver amps
>>are for you.
>
>Could you explain why you stuck with an amplifier for 6 years if you hated
>it so much?
>
>Talk about stupid!
Hey fuckstick, this was while I was in high school, had no money, no car to
go around to all the dealers and audition all the gear they had. I knew I
needed an upgrade to my piece of Radio Shack shit at a reasonable price and
the Carver provided it. Now that I have more money, a car, and am able to go
to various dealers and listen to their products I obviously have more
exposure to audio equipment and have realized the flaws inherent in the
Carver TFM series.
>In any case, the sonic characteristics you mention would seem more
>appropriate to the speakers than the amp, as the tube effects are subtle.
>If anything, it would seem to indicate the amp was defective.
Idiot, if you knew anything about Carver TFMs or read any of their product
literature you would realize that the output stages of the TFMs were
specifically modified to reflect the sonic characteristics of tubes! Tube
effects are not subtle, I have listened to enough tube amps vs. solid state
to recognize the "warmth" tubes add, generally at the expense of detail and
transient response. Besides, when was the last time you heard a metal dome
tweeter add "warmth" to a speaker? Oh yeah, I forgot about NHTs, those are
REAL warm and fuzzy speakers. Not.
Now I understand why Middius and the rest of his crew think you're deaf.
Adam
Jay B. Haider
>Idiot, if you knew anything about Carver TFMs or read any of their product
>literature you would realize that the output stages of the TFMs were
>specifically modified to reflect the sonic characteristics of tubes!
IOW, specifically tailored to sound 'different' from the pack,
therefore seemingly 'better'. Gee, sounds like a lot of really
high-end stuff, if not the GOOD high-end stuff.....
>Tube
>effects are not subtle, I have listened to enough tube amps vs. solid state
>to recognize the "warmth" tubes add, generally at the expense of detail and
>transient response.
Good hollow-state stuff doesn't do that. For an example in preamps,
I refer you to the Sonic Frontiers Line-2, for power amps, Sonic
Frontiers Power 1, even though it's gutless. (Sorry, I haven't heard
much other valve stuff, nothing but SF and an Audio Note; FWIW, I
really like the former, and want nothing to do with the latter)
As for Sideshow Bob's SS or tube equipment sounding like that, I can
believe it. His "white hat" hucksterism just might've given the idea
to companies like YBA, Wadia, etc.....
Jay B. Haider
Class of 2000, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs (Georgia Tech)
"When you're wrong, don't be upset, but rather rejoice, for you're
about to learn something." -Dr James Herod
Adam Fuller
Jay B. Haider wrote in message <6hohrr$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:04:28 GMT, "Adam Fuller"
><ad...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>>Idiot, if you knew anything about Carver TFMs or read any of their product
>>literature you would realize that the output stages of the TFMs were
>>specifically modified to reflect the sonic characteristics of tubes!
>
> IOW, specifically tailored to sound 'different' from the pack,
>therefore seemingly 'better'. Gee, sounds like a lot of really
>high-end stuff, if not the GOOD high-end stuff.....
Hmm. Another comedian. Perhaps you should exercise your wonderful education
and bother reading and replying to my original post rather than posting a
hacked up response that completely alters my original position in erroneous
fashion. Please note that I found the modifications to the TFM series to
lower the sound quality rather than improve it. Well, I guess I shouldn't
have such high expectations from someone majoring in bullshit.
>>Tube
>>effects are not subtle, I have listened to enough tube amps vs. solid
state
>>to recognize the "warmth" tubes add, generally at the expense of detail
and
>>transient response.
>
> Good hollow-state stuff doesn't do that. For an example in preamps,
>I refer you to the Sonic Frontiers Line-2, for power amps, Sonic
>Frontiers Power 1, even though it's gutless. (Sorry, I haven't heard
>much other valve stuff, nothing but SF and an Audio Note; FWIW, I
>really like the former, and want nothing to do with the latter)
Well, I have no SF dealer locally. I would listen to it if I did. My primary
experience with tube amplification has been Cary and Jolida. Personally, I
find this "warmth" to remove immediacy and overall impact from the music. I
like my passive McCormack SS pre just fine, thanks.
> As for Sideshow Bob's SS or tube equipment sounding like that, I can
>believe it. His "white hat" hucksterism just might've given the idea
>to companies like YBA, Wadia, etc.....
Yes, Bob is most certainly a sideshow act these days. I like the Sunfire
subs and all the "True Believers" they have attracted.
>Jay B. Haider
>Class of 2000, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs (Georgia Tech)
Ooooh. We're all sooooooo impressed. I'm not surprised since your school's
homepage also toots its horn at every opportunity. Hey, you're a bright guy
and Georgia Tech has an excellent engineering school. You should look into
that.
Adam
Adam Kuan
Gene Steinberg wrote:
Do you have reading comprehension problem? I did say that I left out
something,
didn't I ? You're really tiresome on demanding evidence when none is necessary
in
this case. Anyway I got exactly what I WANTED from you, so predictable...
Gruvmyster
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> Could you explain why you stuck with an amplifier for 6 years if you hated
> it so much?
>
> Talk about stupid!
Well, perhaps he couildn't afford a new one, or didn't realize it was his amp he
didn't like?
Talk about stupid, Gene...;-)
>In any case, the sonic characteristics you mention would seem more
> appropriate to the speakers than the amp, as the tube effects are subtle.
Not according to Arny, you know...
> If anything, it would seem to indicate the amp was defective.
And this post indicates your mind is.
DOUG
--
"Theory should be study, not doctrine."-- Carl von Clausewitz
Gruvmyster
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> Do you get it now, or does it have to be spelled out to you a little more
> clearly.
What if he doesn't get it. How do you intend on making it more clear.
> And now that you've made incorrect guesses as to what I'd say, how about
> showing us evidence, if you have any, where it might be wrong. Don't have
> any evidence?
Well...
> Didn't think you did....
Here we are, reduced to guessing Gene's intent. There has been a rash of this on
r.a.o recently. Why?
...enjoy wearing a "Mickey the Fairy" costume and prancing around as much as I
did.
...meet your wife in the "adult" section of a 24-hour bookstore.
...beat a rap for lewd behavior by keeping your mouth shut while they questioned
George Michael.
...store your thumb in your ass like I do.
...drop change in public so you could look up skirts.
What perverse thrill do you and Arny get from making us guess?
Doug
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)
George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Adam "fuckstick" Fuller screeched:
>
> >Now I understand why Middius and the rest of his crew think you're deaf.
>
> certain point of view. Or even that he's a ... well,
> whatever. (That word is like "schmuck," right?)
Funny thing is, I sort of enjoy talking to mean Gene. He really laughs
about his online personna, and I think he actually cultivates the rancor
he creates and earns. I have a feeling he thinks it helps to sell his
books, titles like 'AOL is for AsshOLes', "I use a big Mac because I
have a little Mac", and "Buying A Stereo Without Ever Listening". They
are big sellers in Michigan.
Zip
Gruvmyster
George M. Middius wrote:
> Resistance Commander Sandman (congrats on the
> promotion, Jim) said:
>
> >No one knows whether or not he's deaf. He doesn't report his own personal
> >listening experiences here, and is the only one on RAO who, while claiming
> >to own a stereo in the high 5 figures, refuses to discuss what components
> >he has in his system.
>
> Actually, he's one of two regulars of whom this is
> true. The other is Phoebe the Evil Telco Witch. She has
> a crush on Doug and little or no interest in music.
Oh, Christ, George. Do you mean to say jjjjj's a member of the "chase men's
bottoms before you think" brigade?
That's just what we need here: another one of "those".
Andrew Thibault
Adam "fuckstick" Fuller screeched *again*:
>Hmm. My system sounds good. I am happy. I don't have any wish to associate
>with you or the rest of the goons who have nothing better to do around
here.
Then why are you here?
>>What They care about is anyone's guess.
>>
>>BTW, I, for one, do not believe that Steinborg is deaf. I do
>>believe he is obsessed, and obtunded, and extremely obtuse.
>
>
>Okay, maybe I'll give you that one just to be nice. I check Dejanews and
>couldn't find anything on that topic.
You couldn't find anything on Steinborg? Amazing..........Are you sure you
know *how* to use DN? Hint: you can't say yes after not finding anything
about Gene.
Gruvmyster
Andrew Thibault wrote:
> Adam "fuckstick" Fuller screeched *again*:
>
> >Hmm. My system sounds good. I am happy. I don't have any wish to associate
> >with you or the rest of the goons who have nothing better to do around here.
>
> Then why are you here?
Um, he's not associating with us?
> >>What They care about is anyone's guess.
>
> >>BTW, I, for one, do not believe that Steinborg is deaf. I do
> >>believe he is obsessed, and obtunded, and extremely obtuse.
> >Okay, maybe I'll give you that one just to be nice. I check Dejanews and
> >couldn't find anything on that topic.
>
> You couldn't find anything on Steinborg? Amazing..........Are you sure you
> know *how* to use DN? Hint: you can't say yes after not finding anything
> about Gene.
I predict this is one of those times when being labelled a dipshit (or
whatever) will be a badge of honor for either side...;-)
Gruvmyster
Adam Fuller is too late:
> Gruvmyster wrote:
> >Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> >> Could you explain why you stuck with an amplifier for 6 years if you hated
> >> it so much?
>
> >> Talk about stupid!
>
> >Well, perhaps he couildn't afford a new one, or didn't realize it was his
> amp he didn't like?
>
> >Talk about stupid, Gene...;-)
>
> Exactly.
Not exactly, young'n. I've been here long enough to call Gene stupid, because I
know he is. I've seen hundreds of posts to confirm it.
Do not be mistaken, my wet-behind-the-ears child. I was not defending you. Gene
could've made his idiotic post about anyone. I would've responded the same.
> I tried uprgrading most of my system before realizing that I was
> not pleased by the sonic characteristics of the Carver TFM-35!
Impossible! All amps sound the same!
> Yes, I shopped around but I was not in a position to purchase a new amplifier
> until
> very recently.
Stupid!
> I am now happy with how it sounds and how my system sounds as
> a result.
Watch Gene, Arny, et al, post for a while. You are either for us or against us.
No middle roads here! This is r.a.o! Even if you are "middle-of-the-road" you'll
be painted into a corner before too long!;-)
I'm glad you're happy. There are other (evil) people here who may not be.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)
Ray:
You are my friend. I normally agree with you, but this one is classic!
Ray Seda wrote:
>
> Many of you malign Bob Carver and his designs but the fact of the
> matter is:
>
> 1. The Original Phase Linear 700 was the best sounding solid state
> amp of its age.
BBZZZZZTTTTTTT WRONG!
Sounded like rat screaming with its balls on fire. CM Labs 914 and 912
were much better. GAS Ampzilla was better. Dyna 400 was better,
Marantz Model 16 was better, and even the Phase 400 was better. Only
the Crown DC-300 was worse.
> 2. The Carver Silver Nine Tube amps are legendary for their sound
> quality and remarkable power. They are now an over 10 year old
> design and still are considered one of the best amps ever made.
BBZZZZZTTTTTTT WRONG!
They sucked. I sold them at Lyric Hifi. They were legendary for the
most spectacular tube FLAME OUTS of all time!
> 3. The Carver SIlver 9t, the amp with the transfer function (voice)
> of the Carver SIlver Nine still embarrasses modern amps into
> submission, such as BAT, Threshold, etc...
BBZZZZZTTTTTTT WRONG!
This sounded lousy yesterday, and still does today. Read the stuff
about this one in old Stereophiles!
> 4. He beat Arnie Nudell at his own game with the Carver Amazings.
Arnie's speakers were successful, Bob's were not.
> 5. The man was able to finance true high-end designs with innovative
> and profitable mid-fi ventures in the past and continues to do
> so through his "True Subwoofer", and power amp modules for mid-
> fi speakers from AR (RECOTON). I see no evil in that, if the
> result is a honey like the Sunfire amp and the prodigious
> Sunfire Reference.
He did? About the only thing he helped finance was Peter Meater Beater
Axejob's lifestyle!!!!
> The FACT is that there is no designer with Bob Carver's incredible
> track record for continually advancing the state-of-the-art in
> amplification.
BULLSHIT!
Nelson Pass Demian Martin Keith Johnson Bill Johnson Bill
Conrad/Lou Johnson John Curl Shit, even Bongo Jim and many more!
Zip
> Ray Seda
> http://www.sfas.org
> aur...@ibm.net
>
> On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:38:49 -0400, "Steve Schnugg, Jr."
> <ema...@resnet.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> >Jay B. Haider wrote in message <6hjatf$b...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >> Ah, well, there's plenty of good midpriced equipment to pick up the
> >>slack caused by Carver's death. Who needs or wants a marque tainted by
> >>such boondoggles as "Power Steering" when others rely on good build
> >>and good pricing (for hifi), like Adcom, Parasound, and Rotel.
> >> I'd say that Carver shoulda gone into speakers, because the
> >>original Amazing was probably their best product ever, but the
> >>Sunfire True "Subwoofer" proves that this course wouldn't have been
> >>much better.....
> >
> >Actually, reputable audio companies are using various Carver design
> >implementations in their products (Witness Velodyne with their new series of
> >subs based on small footprint designs a la True Subwoofer) And power
> >steering was and still is a great idea if implemented correctly for
> >multichannel usage given the varying power necessities of different channels
> >at any given instant. I do not own Carver, never have and most likely never
> >will, but the company has left its mark on audio design, for better or
> >worse. One thing I don't like is the slow product development by Carver for
> >surround decoding. The surround preamps simply are not state of the art.
> >
> >>"When you're wrong, don't be upset, but rather rejoice, for you're
> >>about to learn something." -Dr James Herod
> >BTW, I never had Herod, but I did use his class notes for 1509, much to my
> >chagrin :)
> >I rejoiced a lot that quarter
> >
> >Steve Schnugg
> >Georgia Tech College of Electrical Engineering, '2001 (or so)
> >
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd.
Miami Shores, FL 33138
PASS Labs Carver Lightstar CODA Jadis Audible Illusions
Camelot Technology Audio Logic CEC Parasound Kinergetics
Chiro Benz Micro Gallo Acoustics Dunlavy Audio NEAR NHT
Cabasse Dwinn Niles Zenith INTEQ Crystal Vision Straightwire
Rega Cleanlines by Vans Evers ENTECH by Monster Cable ESP
Arcane Audio Labs Enlightened Audio Designs and lots more
Steve & Gigi want you to ENJOY THE MUSIC!
DO NOT USE COMPUSERVE
THEY RIPPED US OFF FOR TWO YEARS SERVICE
They told us to take a hike
NEVER USE COMPUSERVE
Sandman
Adam Fuller <ad...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in article
<0OP%.1603$p5.74...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>
> Gene Steinberg wrote in message ...
> >In article <XHg%.1280$p5.60...@news.itd.umich.edu>, "Adam Fuller"
> ><ad...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>Hmm. I owned a Carver TFM-35 for six years. Whatever the motive for
making
> a
> >>large, powerful solid state amp sound like a tube amp, it was a stupid
> idea.
> >>You like fuzzy treble and somnambulant mids? Do you love weak bass that
> >>basically sounds like the output of a typical PA speaker? Then Carver
amps
> >>are for you.
> >
> >Could you explain why you stuck with an amplifier for 6 years if you
hated
> >it so much?
> >
> >Talk about stupid!
>
>
> Hey fuckstick, this was while I was in high school, had no money, no car
to
> go around to all the dealers and audition all the gear they had. I knew I
> needed an upgrade to my piece of Radio Shack shit at a reasonable price
and
> the Carver provided it. Now that I have more money, a car, and am able to
go
> to various dealers and listen to their products I obviously have more
> exposure to audio equipment and have realized the flaws inherent in the
> Carver TFM series.
>
> >In any case, the sonic characteristics you mention would seem more
> >appropriate to the speakers than the amp, as the tube effects are
subtle.
> >If anything, it would seem to indicate the amp was defective.
>
>
> Idiot, if you knew anything about Carver TFMs or read any of their
product
> literature you would realize that the output stages of the TFMs were
> specifically modified to reflect the sonic characteristics of tubes! Tube
> effects are not subtle, I have listened to enough tube amps vs. solid
state
> to recognize the "warmth" tubes add, generally at the expense of detail
and
> transient response. Besides, when was the last time you heard a metal
dome
> tweeter add "warmth" to a speaker? Oh yeah, I forgot about NHTs, those
are
> REAL warm and fuzzy speakers. Not.
>
> Now I understand why Middius and the rest of his crew think you're deaf.
>
> Adam
No one knows whether or not he's deaf. He doesn't report his own personal
listening experiences here, and is the only one on RAO who, while claiming
to own a stereo in the high 5 figures, refuses to discuss what components
he has in his system. All he does is regurgitate Aczel's goop from the
Audio Critic and repeat the ABXer creed ad nauseum. So know one knows if
he actually listens to music through ANY system. We only know he's fond of
rereading certain literature officially approved by the ABX extremists, the
lunatic fringe of audio, and futilely trying to convert others to his creed
and literature. When that fails he calls you "stupid", etc.
George M. Middius
Adam "fuckstick" Fuller screeched:
>Now I understand why Middius and the rest of his crew think you're deaf.
It may well be true that Steinborg is an idiot, from a
certain point of view. Or even that he's a ... well,
whatever. (That word is like "schmuck," right?)
Anyway, now that you're In College, and approaching
adulthood, you're supposed to be figuring out how to
communicate effectively. (Unless you're planning to become
an Engineer, in which case communication skill is a positive
detriment, a veritable albatross that will prevent you from
mindlessly running tests from dawn till dusk.)
Therefore, here's a lesson you should heed if you don't want
every one of your posts to R.A.O. to instigate a flame war.
There is only one "crew" on R.A.O., and it's not mine.
I am a member of the Resistance, a ragtag band of
underfunded normal humans who simply like to listen to and
play with audio gear. Generally speaking, the normals are
not interested in the arcane rituals of the dread ABX
practicum, nor in the perverted Meters & Measurements
lifestyle. We don't really care much about "accuracy". What
*we* care about above all is How It Sounds.
What They care about is anyone's guess.
BTW, I, for one, do not believe that Steinborg is deaf. I do
believe he is obsessed, and obtunded, and extremely obtuse.
Now choose your side and stick with it. You were quite
bratty to me earlier this week, and now you're attacking (in
an infantile manner, at that) one of the M&M ringleaders.
R.A.O. is no fun if you don't have allies.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
George M. Middius
Resistance Commander Sandman (congrats on the
promotion, Jim) said:
>No one knows whether or not he's deaf. He doesn't report his own personal
>listening experiences here, and is the only one on RAO who, while claiming
>to own a stereo in the high 5 figures, refuses to discuss what components
>he has in his system.
Actually, he's one of two regulars of whom this is
true. The other is Phoebe the Evil Telco Witch. She has
a crush on Doug and little or no interest in music.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
Adam Fuller
George M. Middius wrote in message <35ade992...@news.erols.com>...
>Adam "fuckstick" Fuller screeched:
>
>>Now I understand why Middius and the rest of his crew think you're deaf.
>
>It may well be true that Steinborg is an idiot, from a
>certain point of view. Or even that he's a ... well,
>whatever. (That word is like "schmuck," right?)
>
>Anyway, now that you're In College, and approaching
>adulthood, you're supposed to be figuring out how to
>communicate effectively. (Unless you're planning to become
>an Engineer, in which case communication skill is a positive
>detriment, a veritable albatross that will prevent you from
>mindlessly running tests from dawn till dusk.)
Gee old man, since you're so obviously mature, why do spend your days
flaming the shit out of everyone on RAO? Maybe you're an engineer since you
always seem to be talking out of your ass.
>Therefore, here's a lesson you should heed if you don't want
>every one of your posts to R.A.O. to instigate a flame war.
Okay pops, you're one to be giving advice on avoiding flame wars. You seem
to start the majority on RAO.
> There is only one "crew" on R.A.O., and it's not mine.
>
>I am a member of the Resistance, a ragtag band of
>underfunded normal humans who simply like to listen to and
>play with audio gear. Generally speaking, the normals are
>not interested in the arcane rituals of the dread ABX
>practicum, nor in the perverted Meters & Measurements
>lifestyle. We don't really care much about "accuracy". What
>*we* care about above all is How It Sounds.
Hmm. My system sounds good. I am happy. I don't have any wish to associate
with you or the rest of the goons who have nothing better to do around here.
>What They care about is anyone's guess.
>
>BTW, I, for one, do not believe that Steinborg is deaf. I do
>believe he is obsessed, and obtunded, and extremely obtuse.
Okay, maybe I'll give you that one just to be nice. I check Dejanews and
couldn't find anything on that topic.
>Now choose your side and stick with it. You were quite
>bratty to me earlier this week, and now you're attacking (in
>an infantile manner, at that) one of the M&M ringleaders.
>R.A.O. is no fun if you don't have allies.
Why don't come and make me pick a side, bitch? Why does anyone have to be on
a "side"? God, does everyone in America see everything in terms of polar
opposites? Just because I don't believe in one side doesn't make me an
automatic supporter of the other by default. Again, you are one to chide
someone for attacking someone else in an infantile manner as you are the
supreme master of that behavior.
A
Adam Fuller
Gruvmyster wrote in message <353FE967...@mail.idt.net>...
>Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
>> Could you explain why you stuck with an amplifier for 6 years if you
hated
>> it so much?
>>
>> Talk about stupid!
>
>Well, perhaps he couildn't afford a new one, or didn't realize it was his
amp he
>didn't like?
>
>Talk about stupid, Gene...;-)
Exactly. I tried uprgrading most of my system before realizing that I was
not pleased by the sonic characteristics of the Carver TFM-35! Yes, I
shopped around but I was not in a position to purchase a new amplifier until
very recently. I am now happy with how it sounds and how my system sounds as
a result.
A
Ray Seda
Many of you malign Bob Carver and his designs but the fact of the
matter is:
1. The Original Phase Linear 700 was the best sounding solid state
amp of its age.
2. The Carver Silver Nine Tube amps are legendary for their sound
quality and remarkable power. They are now an over 10 year old
design and still are considered one of the best amps ever made.
3. The Carver SIlver 9t, the amp with the transfer function (voice)
of the Carver SIlver Nine still embarrasses modern amps into
submission, such as BAT, Threshold, etc...
4. He beat Arnie Nudell at his own game with the Carver Amazings.
5. The man was able to finance true high-end designs with innovative
and profitable mid-fi ventures in the past and continues to do
so through his "True Subwoofer", and power amp modules for mid-
fi speakers from AR (RECOTON). I see no evil in that, if the
result is a honey like the Sunfire amp and the prodigious
Sunfire Reference.
The FACT is that there is no designer with Bob Carver's incredible
track record for continually advancing the state-of-the-art in
amplification.
Ray Seda
Jay B. Haider
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:30:12 GMT, "Adam Fuller"
<ad...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>>AF
>>>Idiot, if you knew anything about Carver TFMs or read any of their product
>>>literature you would realize that the output stages of the TFMs were
>>>specifically modified to reflect the sonic characteristics of tubes!
>JBH
>> IOW, specifically tailored to sound 'different' from the pack,
>>therefore seemingly 'better'. Gee, sounds like a lot of really
>>high-end stuff, if not the GOOD high-end stuff.....
>Hmm. Another comedian. Perhaps you should exercise your wonderful education
>and bother reading and replying to my original post rather than posting a
>hacked up response that completely alters my original position in erroneous
>fashion. Please note that I found the modifications to the TFM series to
>lower the sound quality rather than improve it.
Of course, that's because you have ears. Some other people listen.
with their wallet rather their ears, and now we have all sorts of
"wonderful" high-end products that sound different just so people will
think they're "better". I never said you fell for it; by contrast, you
seem to stood on the brink of the abyss, spat into it, and walked
away. Good job!
(FWIW, my comment was not directed at you but rather at the general
snake-oil nature of everything Sideshow Bob touches, and I guess
somewhat at the abject hypocrisy of TAC.)
>Well, I have no SF dealer locally. I would listen to it if I did. My primary
>experience with tube amplification has been Cary and Jolida.
Well, what 'cha expect with SETs and cheaply made stuff designed to
capitalise on a fad? 8o)
>Hey, you're a bright guy
>and Georgia Tech has an excellent engineering school. You should look into
>that.
Now why would I want to do that? If I wanted to do math I'd do
math, not a bunch of word problems, especially as an undergrad!
(I have, however, taken an independent study class with Dr
Marshall Leach on loudspeaker design, the only part of engineering
that really interests me.)
Jay B. Haider
Class of 2000, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs (Georgia Tech)
"When you're wrong, don't be upset, but rather rejoice, for you're
about to learn something." -Dr James Herod
George M. Middius
Gruvmyster said:
>> The other is Phoebe the Evil Telco Witch. She has
>> a crush on Doug and little or no interest in music.
>Oh, Christ, George. Do you mean to say jjjjj's a member of the "chase men's
>bottoms before you think" brigade?
Is that the new name for it? ;-)
>That's just what we need here: another one of "those".
I hear Adam "fuckstick" Fuller just got busted for doing it
in the bushes. The question is, why didn't he just make a
date with Phoebe? She can morph into a boy young enough even
for Adam. ;-)
William M. Johnson, Jr.
Totally ignoring the comments of all others, my experience with Carver
equipment
with the 'Transfer Function Modification' is that the ones I've heard made
violins sound
shrill. So, when I first noticed that in the Carver integrated amp I owned for
a while, I
immediately sent it on down the road and bought something sweeter. At the time
my power amp was only a Pioneer Spec 4, but that amp was plenty good enough to
let me hear the Carver screwing up a perfectly good Stradivarius.
Now, less than two years later, I'm a Krell owner, and as far as I'm concerned
the upgrades stop here. I've found the point at which I'm totally happy with my
amps and speakers, plus I'll have to get a much better job to reach for
anything substantially better, if such products even exist. So far I've never
heard better in all my travels to high end stores than I get in my own listening
room, now that I'm a Krell owner.
Somebody mentioned something about a Phase Linear 700 compared to a Krell or
a Levinson and said he couldn't hear a difference, I think. I might suggest
that you
try turning the amps ON first. The differences are totally unmistakable and
very evident
with a blindfold on or off. If you didn't hear a difference, then you should
have your
ears examined by a professional otologist (Ear doctor, if I remember the word
right?)
for some sort of problem. Seriously. Not trying to insult, I just can't
believe you couldn't
hear a difference.
Chris Johnson
wjoh...@palmnet.net
Gene Steinberg
> Do you have reading comprehension problem? I did say that I left out
>something,
>didn't I ? You're really tiresome on demanding evidence when none is necessary
>in
>this case. Anyway I got exactly what I WANTED from you, so predictable...
So you're saying you have no evidence that my statement is incorrect.
In that case, you're just wasting everyone's time with your nonsense.
Gene Steinberg
In article <tWS%.1618$p5.76...@news.itd.umich.edu>, "Adam Fuller"
<ad...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>Exactly. I tried uprgrading most of my system before realizing that I was
>not pleased by the sonic characteristics of the Carver TFM-35! Yes, I
>shopped around but I was not in a position to purchase a new amplifier until
>very recently. I am now happy with how it sounds and how my system sounds as
>a result.
If it takes 6 years to realize this, there's a problem, even if the
financial issue is at stake. In any case, you might have been able to
exchange the amp when you got it, and surely you should have turned it in
for repair if it really sounded so horrible. I'll say this again: The
tube-like qualities are based on a design (the Silver Seven) whose sound
has been given high marks by those who like tube-like effects; the sonic
characteristics you ascribe to this amp just don't jibe with the way it's
known to perform (whatever people tell you, the effects are subtle).
That's why I suggested it was defective, but you never dealt with that
issue.
Adam Kuan
Gene Steinberg wrote:
Speak for yourself! My point was to have you admit that "all amps sound the same"
that are not broken, blah, blah... I have just proven that indeed you are in fact a
liar.
Well, you're probably right, I'm waiting everyone's time. Everyone knows you are a
liar.
I apologize.
Ray Seda
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:55:03 -0400, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo
Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>Ray:
>You are my friend. I normally agree with you, but this one is classic!
>
>Ray Seda wrote:
>>
>> Many of you malign Bob Carver and his designs but the fact of the
>> matter is:
>>
>> 1. The Original Phase Linear 700 was the best sounding solid state
>> amp of its age.
>
>BBZZZZZTTTTTTT WRONG!
>Sounded like rat screaming with its balls on fire. CM Labs 914 and 912
>were much better. GAS Ampzilla was better. Dyna 400 was better,
>Marantz Model 16 was better, and even the Phase 400 was better. Only
>the Crown DC-300 was worse.
>
As I recall, the Phase 700, albeit sitting face down and heat sinks up
in the air with a huge fan blowing on them, was able to play the
Dayton-Wright Electrostatics loudly and very sweetly; the Crown 300
and 600 monos were horrible messes that sounded best when turned off.
The james Bongiorno designs, Ampzilla, Dyna 400, and Marantz 500 were
OK. They had the same basic signature, great bass, 2 dimensional mids,
and muted highs. I admit that the Phase 700 was not the most stable
amo in the world but it was the most musical of the bunch when driving
electrostatics.
>> 2. The Carver Silver Nine Tube amps are legendary for their sound
>> quality and remarkable power. They are now an over 10 year old
>> design and still are considered one of the best amps ever made.
>
>BBZZZZZTTTTTTT WRONG!
>They sucked. I sold them at Lyric Hifi. They were legendary for the
>most spectacular tube FLAME OUTS of all time!
That's funny, Lyric was so taken by these amps that they had a USA
exclusive for distribution!!!
>> 3. The Carver SIlver 9t, the amp with the transfer function (voice)
>> of the Carver SIlver Nine still embarrasses modern amps into
>> submission, such as BAT, Threshold, etc...
>
>BBZZZZZTTTTTTT WRONG!
>This sounded lousy yesterday, and still does today. Read the stuff
>about this one in old Stereophiles!
Well, Steve, I don;t form my opinions on dreck that's written by
S'piles. I trust me ears and the fact is, that if you were to take the
Silver 9t's and slap them into another chassis with a "high-end
designer name" they would be the talk of the town! I've had lots of
amp comparisons happening sat my home over the past couple of months
and the Carvers have humbled the mighty and have earned admiration and
respect from Carver-haters.
>> 4. He beat Arnie Nudell at his own game with the Carver Amazings.
>
>Arnie's speakers were successful, Bob's were not.
>
Arnie's marketing budget was key, not the sound....
>> 5. The man was able to finance true high-end designs with innovative
>> and profitable mid-fi ventures in the past and continues to do
>> so through his "True Subwoofer", and power amp modules for mid-
>> fi speakers from AR (RECOTON). I see no evil in that, if the
>> result is a honey like the Sunfire amp and the prodigious
>> Sunfire Reference.
>
>He did? About the only thing he helped finance was Peter Meater Beater
>Axejob's lifestyle!!!!
>
This I know nothing about this ....
>> The FACT is that there is no designer with Bob Carver's incredible
>> track record for continually advancing the state-of-the-art in
>> amplification.
>
>BULLSHIT!
>Nelson Pass Demian Martin Keith Johnson Bill Johnson Bill
>Conrad/Lou Johnson John Curl Shit, even Bongo Jim and many more!
Well, Steve, Nelson Pass aside, let's just say that true advancement
in the state-of-the-art in amplification is making an excellent
sounding, unfettered-at-any-load, solid state amplifier. Making a good
sounding tube amplifier, is not exactly advancing the art, is it???
Ray
>Zip
>
>
>> Ray Seda
>> http://www.sfas.org
>> aur...@ibm.net
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:38:49 -0400, "Steve Schnugg, Jr."
>> <ema...@resnet.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Jay B. Haider wrote in message <6hjatf$b...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>> >
>> >> Ah, well, there's plenty of good midpriced equipment to pick up the
>> >>slack caused by Carver's death. Who needs or wants a marque tainted by
>> >>such boondoggles as "Power Steering" when others rely on good build
>> >>and good pricing (for hifi), like Adcom, Parasound, and Rotel.
>> >> I'd say that Carver shoulda gone into speakers, because the
>> >>original Amazing was probably their best product ever, but the
>> >>Sunfire True "Subwoofer" proves that this course wouldn't have been
>> >>much better.....
>> >
>> >Actually, reputable audio companies are using various Carver design
>> >implementations in their products (Witness Velodyne with their new series of
>> >subs based on small footprint designs a la True Subwoofer) And power
>> >steering was and still is a great idea if implemented correctly for
>> >multichannel usage given the varying power necessities of different channels
>> >at any given instant. I do not own Carver, never have and most likely never
>> >will, but the company has left its mark on audio design, for better or
>> >worse. One thing I don't like is the slow product development by Carver for
>> >surround decoding. The surround preamps simply are not state of the art.
>> >
>> >>"When you're wrong, don't be upset, but rather rejoice, for you're
>> >>about to learn something." -Dr James Herod
Gene Steinberg
> Speak for yourself! My point was to have you admit that "all amps sound
the same"
>
>that are not broken, blah, blah... I have just proven that indeed you are
in fact a
>liar.
>Well, you're probably right, I'm waiting everyone's time. Everyone knows
you are a
>liar.
>I apologize.
The fact that my viewpoint about audio doesn't agree with yours doesn't
prove I'm a liar. At least I have years and years of controlled listening
tests to back up what I say about which amps have audible differences and
which don't. You have no evidence at all. So who is the liar here? Or is
that even the right word to use.
If you cannot disagree with someone without assuming they are liars, you
are the one with very, very serious problems.
Adam Kuan
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> The fact that my viewpoint about audio doesn't agree with yours doesn't
> prove I'm a liar. At least I have years and years of controlled listening
> tests to back up what I say about which amps have audible differences and
> which don't. You have no evidence at all. So who is the liar here? Or is
> that even the right word to use.
>
> If you cannot disagree with someone without assuming they are liars, you
> are the one with very, very serious problems.
No, it is not about viewpoint (having reading comprehension problem?), I did
not
say that. It is about your responses to other post in which you do not admit
saying
that " all amps sounds the same " that you conviniently leave out "unless
broken", etc.
Regarding my viewpoint on audio, I have my own independent opinion and do not
take *any* publications or magazines as serious as you obviously have shown.
Hint: I don't necessary disagree with you 100% on your viewpoint about audio.
Sander deWaal
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:30:12 GMT, "Adam Fuller"
>> Good hollow-state stuff doesn't do that. For an example in preamps,
>>I refer you to the Sonic Frontiers Line-2, for power amps, Sonic
>>Frontiers Power 1, even though it's gutless. (Sorry, I haven't heard
>>much other valve stuff, nothing but SF and an Audio Note; FWIW, I
>>really like the former, and want nothing to do with the latter)
>Well, I have no SF dealer locally. I would listen to it if I did. My primary
>experience with tube amplification has been Cary and Jolida. Personally, I
>find this "warmth" to remove immediacy and overall impact from the music. I
>like my passive McCormack SS pre just fine, thanks.
So your only experience with tubes is SET and crappy Jolida stuff?
And based on that, you come stumbling in here and tell millions of
people that tube amps add "warmth" and subtract "immediacy and overall
impact"?
GMAFB, man.
Get some experience, and come back after that.
Oh, and don't forget, mr. Know-It-All, that tube amps and speakers
need to be carefully matched.(but of course, you knew that, too.....)
_
Sander deWaal
postm...@pegasus.demon.nl
www.pegasus.demon.nl
_______________________________________________
Gruvmyster
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> At least I have years and years of controlled listening
> tests to back up what I say about which amps have audible differences and
> which don't. You have no evidence at all. So who is the liar here?
Lay it on us, dude! I'll even create the format. All you have to do is fill in
the blanks!
These amps all sound the same:
These amps do not all sound the same:
Here's your chance to shine, Gene! Knock us out!
> If you cannot disagree with someone without assuming they are liars, you
> are the one with very, very serious problems.
It's also your chance to prove what you say. What more could a man with trVth
on his side want?;-)
(Not holding my breath)
George M. Middius
Sander deWaal said:
>So your only experience with tubes is SET and crappy Jolida stuff?
That's our Adam! ;-)
>And based on that, you come stumbling in here and tell millions of people
>that tube amps add "warmth" and subtract "immediacy and overall impact"?
Not to argue about the characteristics of tube amps, but do
you really think *millions of people* read R.A.O.? Holy
cyborgs from hell, Batman!
Jay B. Haider
>So your only experience with tubes is SET and crappy Jolida stuff?
Great minds think alike, even if one of them is currently DS-less...
8o)
Jay B. Haider
Class of 2000, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs (Georgia Tech)
"When you're wrong, don't be upset, but rather rejoice, for you're
about to learn something." -Dr James Herod
Gene Steinberg
----------
In article <35415835...@mail.idt.net>, Gruvmyster
<dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>Lay it on us, dude! I'll even create the format. All you have to do is fill in
>the blanks!
>
>These amps all sound the same:
>
>
>
>These amps do not all sound the same:
>
>Here's your chance to shine, Gene! Knock us out!
>
I've already given you the conditions an amp must meet to sound identical to
another. Why not pay attention next time before you post your drivel?
Gene Steinberg
----------
In article <3541298A...@ti.com>, Adam Kuan <ak...@ti.com> wrote:
> No, it is not about viewpoint (having reading comprehension problem?), I did
>not
>say that. It is about your responses to other post in which you do not admit
>saying
>that " all amps sounds the same " that you conviniently leave out "unless
>broken", etc.
>Regarding my viewpoint on audio, I have my own independent opinion and do not
>take *any* publications or magazines as serious as you obviously have shown.
>Hint: I don't necessary disagree with you 100% on your viewpoint about audio.
You seem so hell bent on misrepresenting what I say (which is that all amps
meeting certain conditions will sound the same, but that MUST be based on
meeting those conditions), but you don't spend any time telling us what your
viewpoint is. Or how you wish to back it up.
And as to your accusation that I've lied, prove it or apologize!
Gruvmyster
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> And as to your accusation that I've lied, prove it or apologize!
Sorry, Gene. jjjjj, a "research scientist" in your camp, has already shown that
proof by assertion is valid on r.a.o.
You lose!;-)
Gruvmyster
Gene Steinberg wrote:
My! What an inefficient group you represent, Gene! I just want to learn what your
years of tests have shown, yet you seem unwilling to share. Why?;-)
OK. Let's forget the first group. Why not share the ones your tests have shown to
be "broken"? Let's stick to SS since we agree tubes generally sound different.
I'll relist it for you:
These amps do not all sound the same:
Wassa matter, Gene? Chicken?;-)
Sander deWaal
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 03:01:20 GMT, citroe...@worldnet.att.net (Jay
B. Haider) wrote the following:
>On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:59:04 GMT, au...@pegasus.demon.nl (Sander
>deWaal) wrote:
>
>>So your only experience with tubes is SET and crappy Jolida stuff?
>
> Great minds think alike, even if one of them is currently DS-less...
>8o)
I've seen a nice one in France already, maybe some
work, but for a '67 car, excellent condition.
Need to save some bucks, but I'll be driving one
again in the near future..... :-P
William M. Johnson, Jr.
Currently I own two different amplifier types of similar power. Both are solid state.
One of them is a PS Audio 200C which delivers about 250 watts per channel
into 8 ohms from near-DC to
over 100,000 Hertz. It's a class AB push-pull design.
My other amps are a pair of Krell KMA-160 monoblocks which also deliver
about 250 watts (each) into 8 ohms
from near-DC to well beyond 20,000 Hertz. (Exactly how high, I don't
know). It is a pure class A fully balanced
design.
Put both types of amps on the test bench and they will measure similarly.
Both types have very similar input
sensitivity, adequate bandwidth and room to spare, similar distortion
specs, similar (and very low) noise floors,
basically in every respect they measure close to each other.
But, when listening to them, there's not the slightest doubt that the
Krells are far superior amps and well worth the
much higher price. (about 8000 for the Krells, about 2000 for the PS,
both at retail when they were new.)
The Krells have clearly superior bass, going deeper with more weight,
authority, and pitch definition, the midrange is
smoother, cleaner, and far more transparent, and the same goes for
the treble. The ability of the Krells to resolve low level
detail is also clearly superior.
I am totally confident that I can tell the difference in a blind comparison
between these two
amp types. Anybody who says that similar non-broken amps
should sound the same has too much faith in test equipment
and too little in his ears. Similar, I'll allow, but different amps
do sound different.
Keeping something relevant to this thread in my posting, I've
heard the Carver TFM series amps quite a bit, since the store
I work for is a Carver dealer. I don't enjoy listening
to amps that make violins sound shrill, and that describes the TFM
series for me. It's a clear case of someone screwing around
with the response of an amp and in the process screwing it up.
The only really good Carver products I've yet heard are the ones that
were designed by Bob Carver himself. Although
some of his designs are a bit out there, they are generally quite a
bit better than the post-Bob stuff that Carver sells now.
The build quality of the new stuff is only adequate from a mechanical
standpoint, barely better than consumer-grade
receivers from the likes of Sony and Pioneer and Technics,
and when the Carvers break they're a genuine
thoroughbred nightmare to fix half the time.
But as for Bob Carver's own designs, the only real gripe I have
is his invention of the "Bobwatt" which allows him to rate the Sunfire
True Subwoofer at 2700 "Bobwatts" which would undoubtedly violate FTC regulations
concerning the rating of power amps. The only accurate (and
allowable) measurement is the continuous deliverable power measurement,
which as I understand brings the STS in at about 300 watts or so.
It's not a bad sub, I've heard it, but it's nothing earth shattering.
I have a custom made sub (made by me, designed for me by me) which
is better to my ears than the STS. It's also
an enormous cabinet, a cube 26 inches on a side. Size equates
to efficiency in subwoofers, and this thing is really, really big.
And really, really LOUD. Deep, to, tuned to -3dB at 21
Hz and -6dB at 17 Hz with EQ compensation to be functionally
flat to 17 Hz.
The shorter the measurement time, the higher the measurement of an impulse
or spike turns out to be. So measure
just the peak and all of a sudden Bob comes up with 2700 watts. Into
a low impedance load, which makes the numbers
higher as well. Big deal. I drive my sub with an honest
880 watts continuous capability at 4 ohms per driver, each driver
takes 440. When I feel like replacing windows and nailing the
roof back on, that is. I get clean peaks of
useable duration well over a kilowatt, too. Really big boom.
Boom good. Boom loud. Chris think big boom rattle brain.
Chris Johnson
wjoh...@palmnet.net
Adam Kuan
Gene Steinberg wrote:
> You seem so hell bent on misrepresenting what I say (which is that all amps
> meeting certain conditions will sound the same, but that MUST be based on
> meeting those conditions), but you don't spend any time telling us what your
> viewpoint is. Or how you wish to back it up.
>
You seem to have the ever lasting problem of people misrepresenting what you
said.:)It will be fruitless to describe my viewpoint in view of your arrogance and
extremist viewpoint.
But I will do so if you describe your own 'ultimate' hi-fi system.:)
> And as to your accusation that I've lied, prove it or apologize!
They are all in dejanews. I won't spend more time on this thread since I have
better
thing to do, ie. listening to new CD's.
Adam Fuller
George M. Middius wrote in message <36084021....@news.erols.com>...
>Sander deWaal said:
>
>>So your only experience with tubes is SET and crappy Jolida stuff?
>
>That's our Adam! ;-)
>
>>And based on that, you come stumbling in here and tell millions of people
>>that tube amps add "warmth" and subtract "immediacy and overall impact"?
Damn, you retirees need stronger eyeglasses or something. Here is what I
originally said:
"Well, I have no SF dealer locally. I would listen to it if I did. My
primary
experience with tube amplification has been Cary and Jolida. Personally, I
find this "warmth" to remove immediacy and overall impact from the music. I
like my passive McCormack SS pre just fine, thanks."
You can check the original post to verify this if you like. When I say
"Personally" it means "that's my opinion based on what I have heard". If I
hear something different then that opinion may change, but this has not yet
occurred. I don't see anything that says I am speaking for the tube-hating
masses, the ABXers or anyone else. Also, I said my "primary", not only
experience had been with Cary and Jolida. I have heard isolated examples of
Audio Research and CAT that sounded good, but not for extended periods.
Sander- No shit you need to match tube amps and speakers. If you get a low
impedance woofer, you can kiss your ass goodbye. Perhaps ProAcs were not the
best choice to use with Cary amplification, but that is how they sounded to
my ears.
A
Sandman
Adam Fuller <ad...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in article
<tWS%.1618$p5.76...@news.itd.umich.edu>...
>
> Gruvmyster wrote in message <353FE967...@mail.idt.net>...
> >Gene Steinberg wrote:
> >
> >> Could you explain why you stuck with an amplifier for 6 years if you
> hated
> >> it so much?
> >>
> >> Talk about stupid!
> >
> >Well, perhaps he couildn't afford a new one, or didn't realize it was
his
> amp he
> >didn't like?
> >
> >Talk about stupid, Gene...;-)
>
>
> Exactly. I tried uprgrading most of my system before realizing that I was
> not pleased by the sonic characteristics of the Carver TFM-35! Yes, I
> shopped around but I was not in a position to purchase a new amplifier
until
> very recently. I am now happy with how it sounds and how my system sounds
as
> a result.
>
> A
Hey! Wasn't Sandman the only guy Gene says he flames?
Sandman
Andrew Thibault <teb...@rochester.infi.net> wrote in article
<6houv6$gh3$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
>
> Adam "fuckstick" Fuller screeched *again*:
>
> >Hmm. My system sounds good. I am happy. I don't have any wish to
associate
> >with you or the rest of the goons who have nothing better to do around
> here.
>
> Then why are you here?
>
> >>What They care about is anyone's guess.
> >>
> >>BTW, I, for one, do not believe that Steinborg is deaf. I do
> >>believe he is obsessed, and obtunded, and extremely obtuse.
> >
> >
> >Okay, maybe I'll give you that one just to be nice. I check Dejanews and
> >couldn't find anything on that topic.
>
> You couldn't find anything on Steinborg? Amazing..........Are you sure
you
> know *how* to use DN? Hint: you can't say yes after not finding anything
> about Gene.
Rumor has it that if you type in "Steinborg" on DN's Power Search function,
a virus instantly devours your hard drive... but if you type in "obsessed",
"obtunded", or "extremely obtuse", tens of thousands of Steinberg posts
miraculously appear!
Sandman
Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<gsteinberg-24...@ip49.phoenix8.az.pub-ip.psi.net>...
> In article <3540718B...@ti.com>, Adam Kuan <ak...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > Speak for yourself! My point was to have you admit that "all amps sound
> the same"
> >
> >that are not broken, blah, blah... I have just proven that indeed you
are
> in fact a
> >liar.
> >Well, you're probably right, I'm waiting everyone's time. Everyone knows
> you are a
> >liar.
> >I apologize.
>
>
> The fact that my viewpoint about audio doesn't agree with yours doesn't
> prove I'm a liar. At least I have years and years of controlled listening
> tests to back up what I say about which amps have audible differences and
> which don't. You have no evidence at all. So who is the liar here? Or is
> that even the right word to use.
See? You do it all the time, Gino. You pretend on the one hand that you
agree that statistics cannot prove a negative, and you even pretend to
agree that a null result does not equal a negative result, yet on the other
hand you keep making statements like the above, where you falsely assert
that these tests you speak of "back up what (you) say about which amps have
audible differences and which don't." Those tests do NOT back up ANY
statement by ANYONE about which amps "don't" have audible differences.
They only demonstrate some positive test results and some null results -
NULL results, NOT NEGATIVE results. Get it yet? You still pretend your
silly list of tests proves that there are no audible differences between
some amplifiers.
Gene Steinberg
>You seem to have the ever lasting problem of people misrepresenting what you
>said.:)It will be fruitless to describe my viewpoint in view of your
arrogance and
>extremist viewpoint.
>But I will do so if you describe your own 'ultimate' hi-fi system.:)
>
>
Since my viewpoint is similar to that voiced by the largest audio/video
magazine in the world, Stereo Review, Consumer Reports and many others,
your definition of what is extreme is, itself, extreme. Extremism is the
view you and a few of your pals espouse on this newsgroup, viewpoints that
have little to do with what real engineers know about audio.
As to arrogance: Your illusion that your eccentric viewpoints are worth
repeating despite the fact that you have no evidence whatever to support
them.
Gene Steinberg
In article <35420F71...@mail.idt.net>, Gruvmyster
<dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>My! What an inefficient group you represent, Gene! I just want to learn
what your
>years of tests have shown, yet you seem unwilling to share. Why?;-)
>
>OK. Let's forget the first group. Why not share the ones your tests have
shown to
>be "broken"? Let's stick to SS since we agree tubes generally sound different.
>
Read the ABX Web site for tests where amps sound different and the same,
and then follow through with the articles as to what factors may cause a
difference. This stuff has been out there for year and years. If you are
totally ignorant of it, it's your problem.
Anonymous
Sandman wrote:
>
> a virus instantly devours your hard drive... but if you type in "obsessed",
> "obtunded", or "extremely obtuse", tens of thousands of Steinberg posts
> miraculously appear!
And when you are confronted with the facts or are asked to post
these test results you promised countless times, you miraculously
_disappear_. This not a rumour. This is a repeatable fact about
to be witnessed again as you won't reply accordingly to this post.
Anonymous
Sandman wrote:
>
> Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <gsteinberg-24...@ip49.phoenix8.az.pub-ip.psi.net>...
> > The fact that my viewpoint about audio doesn't agree with yours doesn't
> > prove I'm a liar. At least I have years and years of controlled listening
> > tests to back up what I say about which amps have audible differences and
> > which don't. You have no evidence at all. So who is the liar here? Or is
> > that even the right word to use.
>
> See? You do it all the time, Gino. You pretend on the one hand that you
> agree that statistics cannot prove a negative, and you even pretend to
> agree that a null result does not equal a negative result, yet on the other
> hand you keep making statements like the above, where you falsely assert
> that these tests you speak of "back up what (you) say about which amps have
> audible differences and which don't." Those tests do NOT back up ANY
> statement by ANYONE about which amps "don't" have audible differences.
> They only demonstrate some positive test results and some null results -
> NULL results, NOT NEGATIVE results.
Where did Steinberg mention _negative_ results? How many null
results so far compared to positive ones? Where are your positive
test results you promised time and time again that I still have
to lay my eyes on for the first time, where?
> Get it yet? You still pretend your
> silly list of tests proves that there are no audible differences between
> some amplifiers.
The only one pretending and putting words in people's mouth here
is you. Were you posting drunk again, Mr. Lawyer?
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <35427DA5...@ti.com>, Adam Kuan <ak...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> >You seem to have the ever lasting problem of people misrepresenting what you
> >said.:)It will be fruitless to describe my viewpoint in view of your
> arrogance and
> >extremist viewpoint.
> >But I will do so if you describe your own 'ultimate' hi-fi system.:)
> Since my viewpoint is similar to that voiced by the largest audio/video
> magazine in the world,
Well that makes it credible.......NOT
With that logic, Steinborg, I guess a Ford Taurus is better than a BMW
540, and the NY Post is better than the NY Times, and a Huffy is better
than a Peugot, and Bose are better than Dunlavys.
Stereo Review is the ultimate sales hack vehicle for mass market
garbage. It has been ever since your buddy, Julian (the deaf dude)
Hirsch strapped on his kneepads for Uncle Amar in 1968.
Cheers
Zip
Gene Steinberg
> Those tests do NOT back up ANY
>statement by ANYONE about which amps "don't" have audible differences.
>They only demonstrate some positive test results and some null results -
>NULL results, NOT NEGATIVE results. Get it yet? You still pretend your
>silly list of tests proves that there are no audible differences between
>some amplifiers.
By are you confused, Sand-for-a-brain. I never said that 20 years of ABX
testing proves there are "no audible differences," only that the
contention there ARE audible differences is not proven in specific tests
where no difference was verified. Your little word game is pathetic.
If you have positive results in tests that followed proper methodology,
show them. As it is, all you can do is play word games, like Lupine/Wolfe,
etc., because you have no information of your own to present to refute
anything, other than your abilities to handle logic.
William M. Johnson, Jr.
Gene Steinberg wrote:
<<SLASH!!>>
>
>
> Read the ABX Web site
<<SLASH!!>>
ABX? Bah! Anybody with a minimal brain stem will rapidly figure out that under
repeated short duration comparative
testing the products under test will sound similar if not exactly alike. The
problem arises because people just don't have
the high resolution lossless aural memory required to make ABX a valid
proposition. Just sitting there, right now, can you
in your mind FULLY, TOTALLY, AND COMPLETELY remember EVERY LAST DETAIL of your most
favorite and/or
most listened to recording, including the spatial cues? No, you can't! Neither
can I, and it's those tiny little details that
can't be reliably remembered that make the difference between one amp and
another. But, you can tell when a better
amp or speakers are giving you details in music that you've never heard before. And
that's why ABX is of limited usefulness.
Only the grossest of differences can be reliably determined by ABX methodology.
Your brain (and mine) doesn't operate that way. In computer terms, it's more of a
lossy encoding technique.
Well, I guess I finally took sides on the ABX issue. Technical background be
damned, the difference is often audible!
Chris Johnson
wjoh...@palmnet.net
George M. Middius
Gene Steinborg wants to assimilate Gruvmyster.
>Doug wrote:
>>Why not share the ones your tests have shown to be "broken"?
>>Let's stick to SS since we agree tubes generally sound different.
>Read the ABX Web site for tests where amps sound different
>and the same, and then follow through with the articles as to
>what factors may cause a difference.
Don't do it, Doug! It's nothing but a big, gooey
assimilation trap. A lot of humans have been
turned into gibbering engineer wannabes just by
spending half an hour wading through that muck.
>This stuff has been out there for year and years.
>If you are totally ignorant of it, it's your problem.
This statement gives us nother important reference
point from the Cyborg's Dictionary of Linguistic
Torture and Abuse:
problem (n): A natural blessing enjoyed by
humans that cyborgs will never experience.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
__________________________________________
The Krooborg Speaks
Problem: Humans enjoying music on their stereos.
Solution: Torture them with ABX boxes.
__________________________________________
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo Inc.)
William M. Johnson, Jr. wrote:
>
> Gene Steinberg wrote:
> <<SLASH!!>>
>
> >
> >
> > Read the ABX Web site
>
Nice post, Chriss!
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd.
Miami Shores, FL 33138
PASS Labs Carver Lightstar CODA Jadis Audible Illusions
Camelot Technology Audio Logic CEC Parasound Kinergetics
Chiro Benz Micro Gallo Acoustics Dunlavy Audio NEAR NHT
Cabasse Dwinn Niles Zenith INTEQ Crystal Vision Straightwire
Rega Cleanlines by Vans Evers ENTECH by Monster Cable ESP
Arcane Audio Labs Enlightened Audio Designs and lots more
Steve & Gigi want you to ENJOY THE MUSIC!
DO NOT USE COMPUSERVE
THEY RIPPED US OFF FOR TWO YEARS SERVICE
They told us to take a hike
NEVER USE COMPUSERVE
George M. Middius
Sebastien McMousey repeats his favorite tired refrain.
>> a virus instantly devours your hard drive... but if you type in "obsessed",
>> "obtunded", or "extremely obtuse", tens of thousands of Steinberg posts
>> miraculously appear!
>And when you are confronted with the facts or are asked to post
>these test results you promised countless times, you miraculously
>_disappear_.
The other day, McMousey "proved" that any human who
does not post test results is "unable" to do so. The
Sebaceous one cannot grasp the notion that few normal
humans even want to be in the same room with the
hideous ABX box or the other perversions of the
disgusting Meters & Measurements lifestyle.
Now Sanders is said to have "promised" some test
results. This assertion emanates from the Fluidic Facts
continuum where the C&A crew spend most of their time.
George M. Middius
William M. Johnson, Jr. said:
>ABX? Bah! Anybody with a minimal brain stem will rapidly figure out
>that under repeated short duration comparative testing the products
>under test will sound similar if not exactly alike.
[snip]
>... you can tell when a better amp or speakers are giving you details in music
>that you've never heard before. And that's why ABX is of limited usefulness.
>Only the grossest of differences can be reliably determined by ABX methodology.
Nothing to add here. :-)
>Well, I guess I finally took sides on the ABX issue. Technical background be
>damned, the difference is often audible!
Be prepared for excommunication, various
accusations of lying and slander, and possibly
spurious accusations about your 'Net behavior sent
to your ISP.
That's the way They operate. Why, just a few
minutes ago, McMousey accused me of being someone
other than myself. If those 'borgs made any sense
at all, they'd be dangerous. ;-)
Gene Steinberg
In article <6hvhnf$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine
Stereo Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>Stereo Review is the ultimate sales hack vehicle for mass market
>garbage. It has been ever since your buddy, Julian (the deaf dude)
>Hirsch strapped on his kneepads for Uncle Amar in 1968.
Two problems with your contention:
1. You don't have any proof that Julian Hirsch is deaf.
2. He has retired and only serves a consulting position with the magazine
these days. If you wish to argue about what Stereo Review does, take it up
with their Technical Editor, David Renada. And if you wish to criticize
his hearing, let's look at yours, and your wife's and that friend of yours
who can't hear a difference between the Yamaha amp and the Pass amp,
right? Before you talk about people's hearing acuity, produce your hearing
tests, and then produce theirs and let's see how they compare.
William M. Johnson, Jr.
George M. Middius wrote:
> Be prepared for excommunication, various
> accusations of lying and slander, and possibly
> spurious accusations about your 'Net behavior sent
> to your ISP.
>
> That's the way They operate. Why, just a few
> minutes ago, McMousey accused me of being someone
> other than myself. If those 'borgs made any sense
> at all, they'd be dangerous. ;-)
>
> George M. Middius
> Remove "jiffy" to reply
> __________________________________________
>
> The Krooborg Speaks
>
> Problem: Humans enjoying music on their stereos.
> Solution: Torture them with ABX boxes.
> __________________________________________
Thanks, Steve and George. I figured that sooner or later I'd decide about ABX
testing, and I did
when I picked up on the part about limited aural memory, which is certainly true
enough.
But, let them come! I am confident that the truth will withstand all attacks from
all heathens.
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow Of Death (disguised as an ABX
box),
I shall fear no evil, for I know that I am the baddest son of a bitch in the
valley."
Chris
Peter Corey
And don't forget Ken Pohlmann
The two of them have forgotten more than Atkinson
and Greenberg et. al. ever pretended to know !
--
^ __
0 || --
Peter Corey
Phoenix
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 12:16:43 -0400, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo
Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>> Well, I guess I finally took sides on the ABX issue. Technical background be
>> damned, the difference is often audible!
>>
>> Chris Johnson
>> wjoh...@palmnet.net
>
>Nice post, Chriss!
>Zip
Yeah, damned right "nice post"....the smoke & mirrors he's trying to
rationalize is good ole' Zip's bread & butter we're messin' with here.
Think he'd survive a week on the thin margins of "mass market"
products like Carver? Marketing 101.....
Phoenix
Phoenix
>
>
>Gene Steinberg wrote:
><<SLASH!!>>
>
>>
>>
>> Read the ABX Web site
>
><<SLASH!!>>
>
>ABX? Bah! Anybody with a minimal brain stem will rapidly figure out that under
>repeated short duration comparative
>testing the products under test will sound similar if not exactly alike. The
>problem arises because people just don't have
>the high resolution lossless aural memory required to make ABX a valid
>proposition. Just sitting there, right now, can you
>in your mind FULLY, TOTALLY, AND COMPLETELY remember EVERY LAST DETAIL of your most
>favorite and/or
>most listened to recording, including the spatial cues? No, you can't! Neither
>can I, and it's those tiny little details that
>can't be reliably remembered that make the difference between one amp and
>another. But, you can tell when a better
>amp or speakers are giving you details in music that you've never heard before. And
>that's why ABX is of limited usefulness.
>Only the grossest of differences can be reliably determined by ABX methodology.
>
>
>Your brain (and mine) doesn't operate that way. In computer terms, it's more of a
>lossy encoding technique.
>
>
>Well, I guess I finally took sides on the ABX issue. Technical background be
>damned, the difference is often audible!
>
>Chris Johnson
>wjoh...@palmnet.net
>
>
Good grief, reading this thread is amusing enough, but this last post
is hands-down winner of the Rationization Society's "Facts Be Damned"
award. Gotta love it.......!
PhoenixGood grief, reading this thread is amusing enough, but this
last post is hands-down winner of the Rationalization Society's "Facts
Be Damned" award. Gotta love it.......!
Phoenix
Peter Corey
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:11:31 GMT
Phoenix wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 12:16:43 -0400, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo
> Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, I guess I finally took sides on the ABX issue. Technical background be
> >> damned, the difference is often audible!
> >>
> >> Chris Johnson
> >> wjoh...@palmnet.net
> >
> >Nice post, Chriss!
> >Zip
>
> Yeah, damned right "nice post"....the smoke & mirrors he's trying to
> rationalize is good ole' Zip's bread & butter we're messin' with here.
> Think he'd survive a week on the thin margins of "mass market"
> products like Carver? Marketing 101.....
>
> Phoenix
Welcome to Never Never Land...
( @ @ )
-oOOo-(_)-oOOo-
| Peter Corey.
| | | |
oooO-------- 0ooo-
( ) ( )
\ ( ) /
\_)
^ __
0 || --
Chuck Ross
(Gene Steinberg again attempted to write.....
> In article <6hvhnf$d...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine
> Stereo Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
> >Stereo Review is the ultimate sales hack vehicle for mass market
> >garbage. It has been ever since your buddy, Julian (the deaf dude)
> >Hirsch strapped on his kneepads for Uncle Amar in 1968.
>
> Two problems with your contention:
>
> 1. You don't have any proof that Julian Hirsch is deaf.
Impossible not to conclude from his er, non-reviews.
> 2. He has retired and only serves a consulting position with the magazine
> these days.
Not enough of a demotion. He should be deported to Cuba.
The idiot has a concrete listening room in his basement that couldn't support
anything longer than a 50Hz wave. He claims to listen to speakers in
there.
His favorite judgement is, "The ________ acquitted itself nicely"
Peter Corey
On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 21:11:31 GMT
Phoenix wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 1998 12:16:43 -0400, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo
> Inc.)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, I guess I finally took sides on the ABX issue. Technical background be
> >> damned, the difference is often audible!
> >>
> >> Chris Johnson
> >> wjoh...@palmnet.net
> >
> >Nice post, Chriss!
> >Zip
>
> Yeah, damned right "nice post"....the smoke & mirrors he's trying to
> rationalize is good ole' Zip's bread & butter we're messin' with here.
> Think he'd survive a week on the thin margins of "mass market"
> products like Carver? Marketing 101.....
>
> Phoenix
Welcome to Never Never Land...
( @ @ )
-oOOo-(_)-oOOo-
| Peter Corey.
| | | |
oooO-------- 0ooo-
( ) ( )
\ ( ) /
\_) (_/
^ __
0 || --
Lupine
In article <gsteinberg-26...@ip236.phoenix8.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> In article <6hvbm8$no7$2...@gte1.gte.net>, "Sandman" <sand...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > Those tests do NOT back up ANY
> >statement by ANYONE about which amps "don't" have audible differences.
> >They only demonstrate some positive test results and some null results -
> >NULL results, NOT NEGATIVE results. Get it yet? You still pretend your
> >silly list of tests proves that there are no audible differences between
> >some amplifiers.
>
>
> By are you confused, Sand-for-a-brain. I never said that 20 years of ABX
> testing proves there are "no audible differences," only that the
> contention there ARE audible differences is not proven in specific tests
> where no difference was verified.
Tell you what. Pick your favorate published ABX test between two amplifier's
( specific make/model ).. ship those two down here, and I'll just use several
CD-R's in a double blind, level matched test.
What do you say? If I can show audible differences between two amplifiers
which has been previously claimed no audible difference.. you will stop
applying
null results to all amplifiers on the market?
Naw.. You'll probably be too chicken to take up the challenge.
Anonymous
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <6hvbm8$no7$2...@gte1.gte.net>, "Sandman" <sand...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > Those tests do NOT back up ANY
> >statement by ANYONE about which amps "don't" have audible differences.
> >They only demonstrate some positive test results and some null results -
> >NULL results, NOT NEGATIVE results. Get it yet? You still pretend your
> >silly list of tests proves that there are no audible differences between
> >some amplifiers.
>
>
> If you have positive results in tests that followed proper methodology,
> show them. As it is, all you can do is play word games, like Lupine/Wolfe,
> etc., because you have no information of your own to present to refute
Anonymous
William M. Johnson, Jr. wrote:
>
> Gene Steinberg wrote:
> <<SLASH!!>>
>
> > Read the ABX Web site
>
> <<SLASH!!>>
>
> ABX? Bah! Anybody with a minimal brain stem will rapidly figure out that under
> repeated short duration comparative
> testing the products under test will sound similar if not exactly alike. The
> problem arises because people just don't have
> the high resolution lossless aural memory required to make ABX a valid
> proposition. Just sitting there, right now, can you
> in your mind FULLY, TOTALLY, AND COMPLETELY remember EVERY LAST DETAIL of your most
> favorite and/or
> most listened to recording, including the spatial cues? No, you can't! Neither
> can I, and it's those tiny little details that
> can't be reliably remembered that make the difference between one amp and
> another. But, you can tell when a better
> amp or speakers are giving you details in music that you've never heard before. And
> that's why ABX is of limited usefulness.
> Only the grossest of differences can be reliably determined by ABX methodology.
>
>
> Your brain (and mine) doesn't operate that way. In computer terms, it's more of a
> lossy encoding technique.
>
>
> damned, the difference is often audible!
Do you need to look at what you listen to to make sure
differences are audible?
Matt Kennel
:
:
:Gene Steinberg wrote:
:<<SLASH!!>>
:
:>
:>
:> Read the ABX Web site
:
:<<SLASH!!>>
:
:ABX? Bah! Anybody with a minimal brain stem will rapidly figure out that under
:repeated short duration comparative
:testing the products under test will sound similar if not exactly alike.
People with a cerebrum surrounding their brain stem, for instance the sort
of people with hypercapable cognitive capacity employed as scientists of the
Bell Laboratories, have decided to figure out via experimental scientific
means which sort of protocols make audio tests the most sensitive.
The answer is that short duration comparative switching tests are the most
sensitive.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD -
* "People who send spam to Emperor Cartagia... vanish! _They say_ that
* there's a room where he has their heads, lined up in a row on a desk...
* _They say_ that late at night, he goes there, and talks to them... _they
*- say_ he asks them, 'Now tell me again, how _do_ you make money fast?'"
Adam Kuan
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
>
> Since my viewpoint is similar to that voiced by the largest audio/video
> magazine in the world, Stereo Review, Consumer Reports and many others,
> your definition of what is extreme is, itself, extreme. Extremism is the
> view you and a few of your pals espouse on this newsgroup, viewpoints that
> have little to do with what real engineers know about audio.
>
Just because I don't agree with some of your extreme viewpoint does not meanthat
I have same viewpoint as the "others". Do not throw me any of these "fallacy of
the exclude middle" BS, or any more ad hoc hypothesis.
As to extremist viewpoint, judge for your self, I have not divulge my general
point and
you already associated me with your 'enemies'. Only an extremist will think the
others
are on the extreme.
> As to arrogance: Your illusion that your eccentric viewpoints are worth
> repeating despite the fact that you have no evidence whatever to support
> them.
Not worth commenting here since it is very hard to discuss with an arrogant
person.
William Johnson
Matt Kennel <mbke...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<slrn6kb5oa....@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>...
> :
> :
> :Gene Steinberg wrote:
> :<<SLASH!!>>
> :
> :>
> :>
> :> Read the ABX Web site
> :
> :<<SLASH!!>>
> :
> :ABX? Bah! Anybody with a minimal brain stem will rapidly figure out
that under
> :repeated short duration comparative
> :testing the products under test will sound similar if not exactly alike.
>
> People with a cerebrum surrounding their brain stem, for instance the
sort
> of people with hypercapable cognitive capacity employed as scientists of
the
> Bell Laboratories, have decided to figure out via experimental scientific
> means which sort of protocols make audio tests the most sensitive.
>
> The answer is that short duration comparative switching tests are the
most
> sensitive.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. That only works on fairly gross differences. Subtle
differences
are another story.
Especially when dealing with equipment that differs from
its competition only in subtle aspects of sound reproduction. It's those
subtleties
which take time to develop a sensitivity to. At a short listening session,
all amps
which measure similar probably WILL sound alike, but take some time to
really listen and get a feel for what it's doing, then compare another amp
for a similar time. In many (most?) cases it then becomes apparent that
the two amps sound different. Not by much, but those little differences
are
the ones which add realism, presence, and believeability to the music.
This statement comes from a person who began shopping for a stereo by
looking
at the spec sheets. But eventually I wised up. I no longer let my
knowledge
of electronics get in the way of the truth. Some people never do.
There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that every last aspect of an
amplifier's
total performance can in fact be measured, and that two amps which sound
very
slightly different can measure differently, but at this point in time
nobody knows
precisely how to do it. And some of the necessary equipment to do so
hasn't been invented yet, I'll wager.
So for now, just accept that at this point in time differences
can and do exist that can not be measured yet.
Chris Johnson
wjoh...@palmnet.net
This posting was created using Internet Explorer 3.02 (which sucks)
because Netscape
started crashing on me every time I try to read this individual newsgroup.
Anybody have any
idea why?
IE sucks.
Netscape would rule if it were reliable.
Jason C. Cotton
Peter Corey <pc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Welcome to Never Never Land...
> ( @ @ )
> -oOOo-(_)-oOOo-
>| Peter Corey.
>| | | |
> oooO-------- 0ooo-
> ( ) ( )
> \ ( ) /
> \_)
>^ __
> 0 || --
Peter,
Quit trying to climb out of your crib!!!
-Jason
Jason C. Cotton
"William Johnson" <wjoh...@palmnet.net> writes:
>IE sucks.
>Netscape would rule if it were reliable.
Now that the source code is in the public domain, expect rapid
improvement. IE source will probably be released when Hell freezes
over...
-Jason
Peter Corey
On Fri, 1 May 1998 07:02:10 GMT
Peter Corey <pc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
"GREAT" , Jason !!! assuming... [ (:-) or (;-) ]
In any case though , I was actually postioning myself for an onslaught
from the " Usual Suspects ".
Sandman
Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<6hsk4d$8...@ecuador.earthlink.net>...
>
> ----------
> In article <35415835...@mail.idt.net>, Gruvmyster
> <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Lay it on us, dude! I'll even create the format. All you have to do is
fill in
> >the blanks!
> >
> >These amps all sound the same:
> >
> >
> >
> >These amps do not all sound the same:
> >
> >Here's your chance to shine, Gene! Knock us out!
> >
>
> I've already given you the conditions an amp must meet to sound identical
to
> another. Why not pay attention next time before you post your drivel?
Aw, come on, Ginocchio! Answer the man's questions!
Which amps sound the same?
(fill in the blank)
Which amps do not sound the same?
(fill in the blank)
Why not post some useful information about this? You obviously have very
strong opinions about it, so why not enlighten us? Surely you must possess
some Steinfraudian list of such amps?
Sandman
Sandman
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote in article
<6hvgsv$7...@basement.replay.com>...
> Sandman wrote:
> >
> > a virus instantly devours your hard drive... but if you type in
"obsessed",
> > "obtunded", or "extremely obtuse", tens of thousands of Steinberg posts
> > miraculously appear!
>
> And when you are confronted with the facts or are asked to post
> these test results you promised countless times, you miraculously
> _disappear_. This not a rumour. This is a repeatable fact about
> to be witnessed again as you won't reply accordingly to this post.
Gee, Sebastian McInturd McMousey - you're ALMOST right... I ALMOST missed
your post, as I generally don't read your datadata crap any more. Guess
you missed it - Gene's by now admitted to the existence of positive ABX and
non-ABX test results, so the point is moot - no need to post test results
he now admits exist. However, back in the spring and summer of 1996 I did
spend quite some time working on such a list and who knows, I may decide to
go back and finish it and post it all someday.
Take your smarmy little sophomoric drivel and blow it out your ear, you
boor.
Sandman
Sandman
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote in article
<6hvhl4$9...@basement.replay.com>...
> Sandman wrote:
> >
> > Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> > <gsteinberg-24...@ip49.phoenix8.az.pub-ip.psi.net>...
> > > In article <3540718B...@ti.com>, Adam Kuan <ak...@ti.com> wrote:
> > > The fact that my viewpoint about audio doesn't agree with yours
doesn't
> > > prove I'm a liar. At least I have years and years of controlled
listening
> > > tests to back up what I say about which amps have audible differences
and
> > > which don't. You have no evidence at all. So who is the liar here? Or
is
> > > that even the right word to use.
> >
> > See? You do it all the time, Gino. You pretend on the one hand that
you
> > agree that statistics cannot prove a negative, and you even pretend to
> > agree that a null result does not equal a negative result, yet on the
other
> > hand you keep making statements like the above, where you falsely
assert
> > that these tests you speak of "back up what (you) say about which amps
have
> > audible differences and which don't." Those tests do NOT back up ANY
> > statement by ANYONE about which amps "don't" have audible differences.
> > They only demonstrate some positive test results and some null results
-
> > NULL results, NOT NEGATIVE results.
>
> Where did Steinberg mention _negative_ results?
He doesn't SAY "negative results" but he repeatedly posts drivel like the
above where it's clear he ASSUMES that null results = negative results.
> How many null results so far compared to positive ones?
Who gives a shit?
> Where are your positive test results you promised time and time again
that I still have to lay my eyes on for the first time, where?
I have a partial list, which I completed in the summer of 1996, before
losing interest. Apparently you missed Gene's admission to the existence
of such results which obviated the need to post them to demonstrate my
point. Maybe I'll go back and complete the list someday, maybe I won't.
What's it to you, you wretched little fart?
> > Get it yet? You still pretend your
> > silly list of tests proves that there are no audible differences
between
> > some amplifiers.
>
> The only one pretending and putting words in people's mouth here
> is you. Were you posting drunk again, Mr. Lawyer?
No, the only time I drank anything before posting was January 4, 1997,
where I had a lot of fun saying goodbye to some of the major assholes on
this NG.
As for "pretending and putting words in people's mouth", you must be
dreaming. I have continuously pointed out Steinfraud's blatant and by now
obviously deliberate misinterpretation of null results in his countless
subjects where he pretends that the demonstrate "no differences" between
electronic components, and Steinfraud has continously ignored the inherent
fallacy in his statements (treating null results as if they were negative
results). If that's "putting words in people's mouths" to you, maybe you
should put away your French dictionary, trash your technobabble reading
material, and take a course in simple English.
And perhaps see a shrink about your compulsive abrasiveness.
Sandman
Anonymous
On 8 May 1998, Sandman wrote:
> Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote in article
> <6hvhl4$9...@basement.replay.com>...
> >
> > Where did Steinberg mention _negative_ results?
>
> He doesn't SAY "negative results" but he repeatedly posts drivel like the
> above where it's clear he ASSUMES that null results = negative results.
So you assume he is assuming, right?
> > How many null results so far compared to positive ones?
>
> Who gives a shit?
You do.
> > Where are your positive test results you promised time and time again
> > that I still have to lay my eyes on for the first time, where?
>
> I have a partial list, which I completed in the summer of 1996, before
> losing interest. Apparently you missed Gene's admission to the existence
> of such results which obviated the need to post them to demonstrate my
> point.
Yeah, I missed it but Gene is Gene and me is me. And I don't admit to the existence of
your list because it does not exist, so your point has _not_ been demonstrated even in part.
> Maybe I'll go back and complete the list someday, maybe I won't.
> What's it to you, you wretched little fart?
Still blowing hot smelly air? Post those references you already have for me to feast on.
> > The only one pretending and putting words in people's mouth here
> > is you. Were you posting drunk again, Mr. Lawyer?
>
> No, the only time I drank anything before posting was January 4, 1997,
> where I had a lot of fun saying goodbye to some of the major assholes on
> this NG.
Hmmm...
> As for "pretending and putting words in people's mouth", you must be
> dreaming. I have continuously pointed out Steinfraud's blatant and by now
> obviously deliberate misinterpretation of null results in his countless
> subjects where he pretends that the demonstrate "no differences" between
> electronic components, and Steinfraud has continously ignored the inherent
> fallacy in his statements (treating null results as if they were negative
> results).
A straw man or a lie. Pick one.
> If that's "putting words in people's mouths" to you, maybe you
> should put away your French dictionary, trash your technobabble reading
> material, and take a course in simple English.
My English is simple enough already. Thank you.
> And perhaps see a shrink about your compulsive abrasiveness.
Abrasive only to asses.
Gene Steinberg
>Gee, Sebastian McInturd McMousey - you're ALMOST right... I ALMOST missed
>your post, as I generally don't read your datadata crap any more. Guess
>you missed it - Gene's by now admitted to the existence of positive ABX and
>non-ABX test results, so the point is moot - no need to post test results
>he now admits exist. However, back in the spring and summer of 1996 I did
>spend quite some time working on such a list and who knows, I may decide to
>go back and finish it and post it all someday.
I never admitted anything but the truth. Most ABX tests yield no
difference, some do.
You, however, cannot supply the promised list of tests that were ignored,
cause you don't have them and never will.
Gene Steinberg
>I have a partial list, which I completed in the summer of 1996, before
>losing interest. Apparently you missed Gene's admission to the existence
>of such results which obviated the need to post them to demonstrate my
>point. Maybe I'll go back and complete the list someday, maybe I won't.
>What's it to you, you wretched little fart?
No new admission exists. I am well aware of what the tests show. You,
however, don't have a partial list or any list, otherwise you would have
blasted it to creation at this point.
>
>As for "pretending and putting words in people's mouth", you must be
>dreaming. I have continuously pointed out Steinfraud's blatant and by now
>obviously deliberate misinterpretation of null results in his countless
>subjects where he pretends that the demonstrate "no differences" between
>electronic components, and Steinfraud has continously ignored the inherent
>fallacy in his statements (treating null results as if they were negative
>results). If that's "putting words in people's mouths" to you, maybe you
>should put away your French dictionary, trash your technobabble reading
>material, and take a course in simple English.
>
There is no deliberate misinterpretation except by you, because you have
little understanding of the nonsense mantra you repeat over and over
again. When a listening test shows "no differences," it means simply that
the listeners were not able to detect any above the level of chance. Null
results are evidence that something doesn't exist, but you can't prove a
negative to a certainty. This is the distinction that forever eludes you
and the Jammer creature.
Sandman
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote in article
<6iv633$b...@basement.replay.com>...
>
> On 8 May 1998, Sandman wrote:
>
> > Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> wrote in article
> > <6hvhl4$9...@basement.replay.com>...
> > >
> > > Where did Steinberg mention _negative_ results?
> >
> > He doesn't SAY "negative results" but he repeatedly posts drivel like
the
> > above where it's clear he ASSUMES that null results = negative results.
>
>
> So you assume he is assuming, right?
Nope. It's crystal clear from his posts on the subject that he could not
possibly could not possibly arrive at his conclusions absent such an
assumption.
> > > How many null results so far compared to positive ones?
> >
> > Who gives a shit?
>
>
> You do.
No I don't.
>
> > > Where are your positive test results you promised time and time again
> > > that I still have to lay my eyes on for the first time, where?
> >
> > I have a partial list, which I completed in the summer of 1996, before
> > losing interest. Apparently you missed Gene's admission to the
existence
> > of such results which obviated the need to post them to demonstrate my
> > point.
>
>
> Yeah, I missed it but Gene is Gene and me is me. And I don't admit to
the existence of
> your list because it does not exist, so your point has _not_ been
demonstrated even in part.
Maybe you can get yourself into an argument with Gene about it - the lapdog
biting the hand that feeds it? Hoooweeee!
> > Maybe I'll go back and complete the list someday, maybe I won't.
> > What's it to you, you wretched little fart?
>
>
> Still blowing hot smelly air? Post those references you already have
for me to feast on.
Someone close the windows. McInturd just defecated again.
> > > The only one pretending and putting words in people's mouth here
> > > is you. Were you posting drunk again, Mr. Lawyer?
> > As for "pretending and putting words in people's mouth", you must be
> > dreaming. I have continuously pointed out Steinfraud's blatant and by
now
> > obviously deliberate misinterpretation of null results in his countless
> > subjects where he pretends that the demonstrate "no differences"
between
> > electronic components, and Steinfraud has continously ignored the
inherent
> > fallacy in his statements (treating null results as if they were
negative
> > results).
>
>
> A straw man or a lie. Pick one.
You seem to have as much affinity for that phrase as you do for
"datadatadata".
> > If that's "putting words in people's mouths" to you, maybe
you
> > should put away your French dictionary, trash your technobabble reading
> > material, and take a course in simple English.
>
>
> My English is simple enough already. Thank you.
VERY simple, Simpleton.
> > And perhaps see a shrink about your compulsive abrasiveness.
>
>
> Abrasive only to asses.
You should get together with Bug Eater.
Sandman
Sandman
Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<gsteinberg-26...@ip236.phoenix8.az.pub-ip.psi.net>...
> In article <6hvbm8$no7$2...@gte1.gte.net>, "Sandman" <sand...@gte.net>
wrote:
>
> > Those tests do NOT back up ANY
> >statement by ANYONE about which amps "don't" have audible differences.
> >They only demonstrate some positive test results and some null results -
> >NULL results, NOT NEGATIVE results. Get it yet? You still pretend your
> >silly list of tests proves that there are no audible differences between
> >some amplifiers.
>
>
> By are you confused, Sand-for-a-brain. I never said that 20 years of ABX
> testing proves there are "no audible differences," only that the
> contention there ARE audible differences is not proven in specific tests
> where no difference was verified. Your little word game is pathetic.
You lie like a rug, Steinborg, to cover up your countless posts in which
contradict the above. You have on countless times gone a LOT farther than
you admit in this post. And I NEVER said that YOU said that "20 years of
ABX testing proves there are 'no audible differences." Just another
devious ploy on your part.
> If you have positive results in tests that followed proper methodology,
> show them. As it is, all you can do is play word games, like
Lupine/Wolfe,
> etc., because you have no information of your own to present to refute
> anything, other than your abilities to handle logic.
Don't you ever tire of this silly little mantra of yours that you impose on
everyone and anyone at RAO who questions your dogmatic obsession with ABX?
Sandman
Sandman
Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<gsteinberg-08...@2cust54.tnt6.lax3.da.uu.net>...
You mooted the issue a month or so ago when you admitted to me that you are
aware of the existence of such tests.
I have a lot of them referenced in some materials in the garage. One day I
may wade through all that boring stuff again and assemble it all here for
you and McInturd to choke on.
Sandman
Sandman
Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<gsteinberg-08...@2cust54.tnt6.lax3.da.uu.net>...
> In article <6iutlt$jqr$1...@gte2.gte.net>, "Sandman" <sand...@gte.net>
wrote:
>
> >I have a partial list, which I completed in the summer of 1996, before
> >losing interest. Apparently you missed Gene's admission to the
existence
> >of such results which obviated the need to post them to demonstrate my
> >point. Maybe I'll go back and complete the list someday, maybe I won't.
> >What's it to you, you wretched little fart?
>
> No new admission exists.
Sure it does Gene - I don't have to reference it for you - you know
perfectly well you admitted to me in an exchange about a month or so ago
that you are aware of the existence of positive blind test results, both
ABX and non-ABX.
I am well aware of what the tests show. You,
> however, don't have a partial list or any list, otherwise you would have
> blasted it to creation at this point.
You really are a presumptious ass's presumptuous ass, Steinfraud.
> >As for "pretending and putting words in people's mouth", you must be
> >dreaming. I have continuously pointed out Steinfraud's blatant and by
now
> >obviously deliberate misinterpretation of null results in his countless
> >subjects where he pretends that the demonstrate "no differences" between
> >electronic components, and Steinfraud has continously ignored the
inherent
> >fallacy in his statements (treating null results as if they were
negative
> >results). If that's "putting words in people's mouths" to you, maybe
you
> >should put away your French dictionary, trash your technobabble reading
> >material, and take a course in simple English.
> >
>
> There is no deliberate misinterpretation except by you, because you have
> little understanding of the nonsense mantra you repeat over and over
> again. When a listening test shows "no differences," it means simply that
> the listeners were not able to detect any above the level of chance. Null
> results are evidence that something doesn't exist, but you can't prove a
> negative to a certainty. This is the distinction that forever eludes you
> and the Jammer creature.
I addressed this BS in another post.
Sandman
Gene Steinberg
>You lie like a rug, Steinborg, to cover up your countless posts in which
>contradict the above. You have on countless times gone a LOT farther than
>you admit in this post. And I NEVER said that YOU said that "20 years of
>ABX testing proves there are 'no audible differences." Just another
>devious ploy on your part.
Stop denying the statements you make over and over again. I have been very
specific on what ABX tests show and what they don't show. Learn to read
before you continue this crap.
Gene Steinberg
In article <6j46is$e1n$2...@gte2.gte.net>, "Sandman" <sand...@gte.net> wrote:
>You mooted the issue a month or so ago when you admitted to me that you are
>aware of the existence of such tests.
>
No admission was involved. I've always said the very same thing.
>I have a lot of them referenced in some materials in the garage. One day I
>may wade through all that boring stuff again and assemble it all here for
>you and McInturd to choke on.
I don't believe you.