Any Sony CD Guru out there?
yu...@ihug.co.nz
I've got a Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player. From what I've read it was an
extremeley good player in it's day, and still considered one of the
best cd players today. The problem with mine is that the laser has
gone, and Sony don't carry it anymore. I have found a site
www.partstore.com who carry it. It's about $160USD or so, but they
won't ship outside the US. Have found the same optical pick up on some
asian sites, but when I contacted them, they don't have it. My
questions are is the player worth repairing? Can I get some good ones
on the second hand market which is as good at a good price? And does
anyone know of another source for the optical pickup? Or an alternative
which could be used instead?
Thanks in advanced.
Yung
Trevor Wilson
<yu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1121114855.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I've got a Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player. From what I've read it was an
> extremeley good player in it's day, and still considered one of the
> best cd players today. The problem with mine is that the laser has
> gone, and Sony don't carry it anymore. I have found a site
> www.partstore.com who carry it. It's about $160USD or so, but they
> won't ship outside the US. Have found the same optical pick up on some
> asian sites, but when I contacted them, they don't have it. My
> questions are is the player worth repairing?
**ABSOLUTELY! Sony have turned out some shockers over the years, but the
XA7ES is not one of them. A superb sounding and beautifully constructed CD
player.
Can I get some good ones
> on the second hand market which is as good at a good price? And does
> anyone know of another source for the optical pickup? Or an alternative
> which could be used instead?
**Keep trying with the US source.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
>
> I've got a Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player. From what I've read
it
> was an extremeley good player in it's day, and still
> considered one of the best cd players today. The problem
with
> mine is that the laser has gone, and Sony don't carry it
> anymore. I have found a site www.partstore.com who carry
it.
> It's about $160USD or so, but they won't ship outside the
US.
> Have found the same optical pick up on some asian sites,
but
> when I contacted them, they don't have it. My questions
are is
> the player worth repairing?
Probably not.
>Can I get some good ones on the
> second hand market which is as good at a good price?
You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
price of the laser assembly.
Trevor Wilson
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:nvudnQM4L7j...@comcast.com...
> <yu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1121114855.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've got a Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player. From what I've read
> it
>> was an extremeley good player in it's day, and still
>> considered one of the best cd players today. The problem
> with
>> mine is that the laser has gone, and Sony don't carry it
>> anymore. I have found a site www.partstore.com who carry
> it.
>> It's about $160USD or so, but they won't ship outside the
> US.
>> Have found the same optical pick up on some asian sites,
> but
>> when I contacted them, they don't have it. My questions
> are is
>> the player worth repairing?
>
> Probably not.
**I'll certainly pay the price of a laser for a non-functioning XA7ES.
They're superb CD players.
>
>>Can I get some good ones on the
>> second hand market which is as good at a good price?
>
> You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
> price of the laser assembly.
**Wanna bet?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
calc...@hotmail.com
marketplace newsgroup, or have someone in the US freight forward it for
you. Probably a $160 new CD player will not be as good as your Sony-it
might be but I'd not bet on it.
The bottom line is that build cost usually will out-your player
probably cost more to build than new ones do. While some of that may be
offset by genuine improvement, materials and processes haven't greatly
changed in-what,15 years?- so a more cheaply built unit won't last as
long. This is certainly true of VCR's-given replacement parts of
quality, you cannot buy one new as good as what was made in the first
years of front-load production. It's true of washing machines, car
engines, and many other things as well.
robert casey
> questions are is the player worth repairing? Can I get some good ones
> on the second hand market which is as good at a good price? And does
> anyone know of another source for the optical pickup? Or an alternative
> which could be used instead?
>
There's always ebay. Either a complete nice looking unit, or
a beat up one you could swap the transport out of. A problem
of what would need readjusting might come up, though. You
could transplant all the boards and transport together, or
transplant any damaged covers or trim.
Harry Lavo
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:42d2dfda$1...@news.comindico.com.au...
>
> <yu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:1121114855.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I've got a Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player. From what I've read it was an
>> extremeley good player in it's day, and still considered one of the
>> best cd players today. The problem with mine is that the laser has
>> gone, and Sony don't carry it anymore. I have found a site
>> www.partstore.com who carry it. It's about $160USD or so, but they
>> won't ship outside the US. Have found the same optical pick up on some
>> asian sites, but when I contacted them, they don't have it. My
>> questions are is the player worth repairing?
>
> **ABSOLUTELY! Sony have turned out some shockers over the years, but the
> XA7ES is not one of them. A superb sounding and beautifully constructed CD
> player.
>
>
for a laser replacement for the same reason. The Sony is a superbly built
unit. Back in the day, I did a head-to-head of theat unit, the Phillips,
and the top of the line Denon (can't remember the model number). The
Phillips and the Sony ran very close together...the Sony was probably more
neutral and had the signature Sony house sound. I preferred the Phillips
slightly and so bought it, but could have been happy with the Sony. Nothing
being sold below $2000 today is built like these units were. Replace the
optical pickup and it'll be good for another 15 years.
calc...@hotmail.com
> >
> I'll second Trevor on this one. I'm holding onto a Phillips 880 and looking
> for a laser replacement for the same reason. The Sony is a superbly built
> unit. Back in the day, I did a head-to-head of theat unit, the Phillips,
> and the top of the line Denon (can't remember the model number). The
> Phillips and the Sony ran very close together...the Sony was probably more
> neutral and had the signature Sony house sound. I preferred the Phillips
> slightly and so bought it, but could have been happy with the Sony. Nothing
> being sold below $2000 today is built like these units were. Replace the
> optical pickup and it'll be good for another 15 years.
In all consumer products-and many capital ones too-there is a quality
curve. The best are made at some point where they have the tech pretty
well down but the pressure to cut costs hasn't set in and there is a
desire not to monkey with the good thing. Once cost cutting sets in,
quality goes out the door because given the time value of money people
perceive that the cheaper one is "good enough" and the delta in price
can be reinvested to replace it: also, the buyer doesn't understand the
difference between the new one and the old one and so the new shiny
warranted one looks pretty good. (How many new car buyers appreciate
the difference between a well machined heavy sand cast cylinder head
and a near-net-shape lost foam one, which has virtually no excess meat
to machine and depends on an epoxy coating to keep coolant out of the
oil?)
If you cut the cost and hold up the price, you make more profit. Of
course the price comes down eventually, but as long as cost reduction
leads price fall you benefit in absolute as well as relative terms.
A lot of this is perception. When the customer perceives that the old
one was better, he gets conservative and less likely to buy, and our
economy is set up so you buy, buy, buy. You cannot buy a well made
consumer-format video cassette recorder new, as far as I know, at any
price-the well made decks are all strictly professional format. You
cannot buy a really well-made 35mm camera anymore, except the M Leica,
and that's been cheapened significantly from early ones. Although much
high end audio equipment has design flaws or is overpriced, it's the
only source of reasonably well built audio equipment suitable for home
use for the most part. (A few pro pieces are suitable for home use, but
relatively few-and much pro equipment today is really prosumer, e.g.
anything from Behringer, Alesis, Mackie, and many products of legit
American companies like Crown.) You cannot buy a portable shortwave
radio as well made as the Zenith Trans-Oceanics(although certain Sonys
and Sangeans do outperform themn in some ways).
It's a long and sad list.
Harry Lavo
<calc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121122018.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
About two years ago I listed on eBay a video unit that consisted of a top
quality (circa '82) Panasonic portable video camera, along with a two piece
portable video recorder. Picture quality is superb; low light sensitiviy
was as good as any Panasonic has ever made. Build quality was
excellent...this was top of the line gear that together retailed for close
to $2500 in 1980. It didn't have autofocus, but otherwise met and exceeded
in picture and sound quality any tape I have seen made in the last ten
years. I put it on eBay at $20, and with no reserve, in a ten-day auction.
I described it well (much more detailed than here). I felt sure some
aspiring film student or amateur videographer would grab it. I didn't get a
single bid.
But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly
good, superbly built gear.
Arny Krueger
No Trevor, not as long as you're in Australia and I'm in
Michigan.
Trevor Wilson
**Thought so. You should also factor in the following:
* The Sony XA7ES has a number of technical features which set it apart from
cheap CD players. These include:
Proper relay muting.
Decent output stage, which does not include primitive, 4558-style output
ICs.
* I've actually performed a DBT with the XA7ES and a couple of other players
(quite respectable, but not cheap ones) and the AX7ES acquitted itself very
well indeed. One of those players was the very impressive XA2ES.
Have you heard the XA7ES?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
calc...@hotmail.com
they should all sound the same according to tests.
yu...@ihug.co.nz
> You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
> price of the laser assembly.
Can you please recommend some new players comparable to the XA7ES for
$200USD?
Thanks
calc...@hotmail.com
quality and refinement" or "comparable in sound according to Arny".
Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same Arny will be able to
recommend just about every product for that price that will play CD's.
But, of course, it will be more interesting to hear Arny explain it
himself...
yu...@ihug.co.nz
I actually have a hell of a time listening to the differences in CD
players. I do believe there are good ones and bad ones. Difference is
extremely small though (to me). Which is why my cd player is always a
crap one. I picked up this XA7ES for cheap (not working) and trying to
find out if it's worth fixing. As usual, some have said yes for sure,
some have said no, don't waste your money. Having said that, if I could
get a $200USD CD player 'sounding' as good as the XA7ES, then I'm happy
to spend it. I'm not entirely convinced you can though, which is why i
asked him the question.
ric
> I've got a Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player. From what I've read it was an
> extremeley good player in it's day, and still considered one of the
> best cd players today. The problem with mine is that the laser has
> gone, and Sony don't carry it anymore. I have found a site
> www.partstore.com who carry it. It's about $160USD or so, but they
> won't ship outside the US.
Have that site ship to a friend in the US, who in turn ships it
to you. Costlier (maybe not), but if you want the part...
ric
> You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
> price of the laser assembly.
A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one, praytell?
Stewart Pinkerton
> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>they should all sound the same according to tests.
And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening*
tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony
ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I
have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD
player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
Pioneer DV-575A - and it plays SACD and DVD-A as well!
Clyde Slick
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eqm6d1p2dotgtu1j7...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, calc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>>they should all sound the same according to tests.
>
>
> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
>
Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
paul packer
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> Sony have turned out some shockers over the years
Care to spready your wisdom and name them, Trevor?
Adam F
generally smaller operators who don't mind negotiating os postage.
//Adam F
<yu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1121114855.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Gordon
Gordon
Trevor Wilson
"paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:42d36d3a...@news.iprimus.com.au...
**The first player they ever made, was one. The CPD101. I don't recall the
others' model numbers. And I don't much care. The XA series, OTOH were
superb sounding machines.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Sonic
try out. Found them to be bright as anything, especially the XA5ES,
even using the digital out it proved to be bright.
I also remember Greg Borrowmans first review on the 5, he couldnt bring
himself to say it but read between the lines and he basically was
saying its bright as all buggery! LOL
EddieM
> Clyde Slick wrote
>> Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>> calcerise wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>>>they should all sound the same according to tests.
>>
>>
>>In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
>> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
>
>
>
> Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.
Gotta love those Mikhail Tal's moves.
EddieM
> Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote
>> calcerise wrote:
>
>
>
>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>> they should all sound the same according to tests.
>
> And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening*
> tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony
> ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I
> have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD
> player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
> player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
> for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you
were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your
three cd players namely:
1. Sony CDP-715E
2. Meridian 588
3. Pioneer DV-575A
Were you also comparing their sounds from each other?
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:nNKdnUPYaeZ...@comcast.com...
>> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote
in
>> message news:42d2...@news.comindico.com.au
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nvudnQM4L7j...@comcast.com...
>>>> <yu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>> Can I get some good ones on the
>>>>> second hand market which is as good at a good price?
>>>> You can easily get one that is just as good new, for
the
>>>> price of the laser assembly.
>>> **Wanna bet?
>> No Trevor, not as long as you're in Australia and I'm in
>> Michigan.
> **Thought so. You should also factor in the following:
> * The Sony XA7ES has a number of technical features which
set
> it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
> Proper relay muting.
Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
break.
> Decent output stage, which does not include primitive,
> 4558-style output ICs.
Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about 4558s
isn't my problem.
> * I've actually performed a DBT with the XA7ES and a
couple of
> other players (quite respectable, but not cheap ones) and
the
> AX7ES acquitted itself very well indeed. One of those
players
> was the very impressive XA2ES.
> Have you heard the XA7ES?
Why would I need to when so many other CD players are
capable of providing facsimile reproduction of the digital
file used to create the CD being played?
Arny Krueger
news:1121133578....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same.
This would be a lie.
Arny Krueger
news:42D35A8B...@home.com
I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the predecessor
of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the
Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.
Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how
bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended it
for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of
Harry's primary traits.
Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that
appears to be about the time the golden ears turned against
it.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1132003135639.pdf
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "ric" <nos...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:42D35A8B...@home.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
> >> price of the laser assembly.
>
> > A player as good as the XA7ES for $160 USD? Which one,
> > praytell?
>
> I have a Pioneer DV-563A which is I believe the predecessor
> of Stewart's Pioneer DV-575A which is approximated by the
> Pioneer DV-578A outside the UK.
Me, too.
> Harry Lavo recommended the DV-563 to RAHE readers, so how
> bad can it be? Of course, later on Harry dis-recommended it
> for questioanble reasons, but consistency isn't one of
> Harry's primary traits.
Some 563s have trouble playing certain hi-rez discs due to a software
bug. There are also reports of random popping noises.
I haven't had any trouble with mine. It sounds good for dvd and sacd,
but I don't like the cd playback quality. This may just be an accident
of the few cds I've played on it.
> Sound and Vision gave the DV-563A a good review, and that
> appears to be about the time the golden ears turned against
> it.
>
> http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1132003135639.pdf
It was also recommended by Absolute Sound and The Perfect Vision.
Stephen
Gordon
post in an Austalian newsgroup.
Gordon
dean
<yu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1121114855.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I've got a Sony CDP-XA7ES CD player. From what I've read it was an
> extremeley good player in it's day, and still considered one of the
> best cd players today. The problem with mine is that the laser has
> gone, and Sony don't carry it anymore.
Try this:
http://www.bioaudio.it/clock_analog_player.htm
Definately worth fixing up. It must have been used alot because XA7ES is a
non-moving laser block design and would takes decades before it start to
play up. I have and still own most of Sony CD flagship models ( X7ESD,
X77ES, X777ES, XA5ES and XA7ES ). I sold my XA7ES last year and although my
vote is for X77ES - being Sony's best work ever- but XA7ES is an great CD
player which you will have a hard time finding something better.
Cheers
Dean
Arny Krueger
news:db0ed2$5ri$1...@news-01.bur.connect.com.au
I didn't set up the crosspost.
Harry Lavo
"Clyde Slick" <Yusta...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:42d36070$1...@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eqm6d1p2dotgtu1j7...@4ax.com...
>> On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, calc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>>>they should all sound the same according to tests.
>>
>>
>>In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
>> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
>>
>
> Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.
Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us
who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no
difference. :-)
paul packer
wrote:
>Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you
>were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your
>three cd players namely:
>
>1. Sony CDP-715E
>
>2. Meridian 588
>
>3. Pioneer DV-575A
>
>
>Were you also comparing their sounds from each other?
Sorry?
Arny Krueger
news:WHNAe.1558$mN1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com
Good point.
There's an equal danger in missing an audible difference
because you expect it to not be there, as there is a danger
in falsely perceiving a difference because the listening
test was done naively.
So Eddie, what to do?
Harry Lavo
Actually, no, Arny. I never owned or auditioned the 563a. But I did
recommend the 578 immediately after it came out. I think for it's price it
is head and shoulders above it's similarly priced competition in sound
quality. Interesting that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it
for their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy "if sound
quality is your primary emphasis".
However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent CD player. It is
an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price point. And it is a mediocre SACD
player. It's main shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
better players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate transparency that
better players have.
But is it as good, say as a Sony XA9000ES? No way. Even my C222ES reveals
a more natural sound and ambience on CD and SACD, and when output through my
DTI Pro/Proceed DAC combo, both stand-alone units come up short on CD.
And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on this in RAHE. I
did however change my opinion on the cheapy Panasonic I had previously
brought to the group's attention. And that was in part based on poor video
performance. Perhaps you are confusing the two.
And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group pre-dated any
written review of the 578. I bought it when shopping for a good DVD-A
player, and decided that there wasn't enought sound difference given the
uncertainty about DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
superb DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears. And I continue to
recommend it as a low-cost unit, no matter what mag or online review agrees
or disagrees with me (although it is always nice when a consensus builds
behind you).
paul packer
wrote:
>> Arny ,a quick question ,as you are in Michigan why do you
>feel
>> the need to post in an Austalian newsgroup.
>
>I didn't set up the crosspost.
Arnie's being modest. In his generosity of spirit he likes to shed his
guiding light to the far-flung corners. In other words, he wants
Aussie's to share in the good news that all components of a competent
design standard sound alike and therefore no anxiety need be expended
on their selection--just get the cheapest. This is the message of
simple benediction he spreads, and you may be sure I at least am truly
grateful for it. This is how I ended up with a Pioneer 676a that
sounds exactly like a Sony XA7ES. Will the blessings never cease
flowing to us from the good old US of A?
Arny Krueger
news:c_Gdnfsr8K9...@comcast.com
But you did make a positive mention of it in a post, Harry.
Thanks for showing the kind of slippery statements you will
restor to in order to avoid admitting to a possible error.
> But I did recommend the 578 immediately after it came out.
I
> think for it's price it is head and shoulders above it's
> similarly priced competition in sound quality.
Interesting
> that the editors of The Perfect Vision just picked it for
> their lowest priced recommended system as the one to buy
"if
> sound quality is your primary emphasis".
As another poster mentioned, Perfect Vision also said nice
things about the 563a in Mar./Apr. 2004.
So now Harry, you say that the 578 is good because PV said
nice things about it, but they said nice things about the
563 but you are right to disagree with them?
> However, it's value varies by format. It is a very decent
CD
> player. It is an exceptional DVD-A player at it's price
> point. And it is a mediocre SACD player. It's main
> shortcoming is that it doesn't reveal ambience the way
better
> players do. In other words, it lacks the ultimate
> transparency that better players have.
Prove it.
> And BTW Arny, I don't recall ever changing my opinion on
this
> in RAHE.
So much for your memory, Harry.
> I did however change my opinion on the cheapy
> Panasonic I had previously brought to the group's
attention.
> And that was in part based on poor video performance.
Perhaps
> you are confusing the two.
No Harry, your negative post about 563 said:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/0b453da09ffffb70
"I *do* know that the 563 had control chip problems that led
it to not being
able to read the SACD layer on many UMG hybrid disks...so a
lot of people
who liked the sound gave them up because of the hassle.
That is also why I
never even tried it."
> And for what it is worth, my recommendation to the group
> pre-dated any written review of the 578.
So Harry this is an attempt on your part to steer attention
away from your mistakes w/r/t the 563?
This just shows that you were speaking out on a topic you
actually knew nothing at all about.
> I bought it when
> shopping for a good DVD-A player, and decided that there
> wasn't enought sound difference given the uncertainty
about
> DVD-A's future to justify the Arcam DV79, which is a
superb
> DVD-A machine. I bought it based on my ears.
The fallacy your perceptions and thoughts are already well
known, Harry. Ditto for your brain, given how you just
scrambled facts like the dynamic range of SACD versus DVD-A,
and your prior recommendations and comments.
George Middius
yu...@ihug.co.nz said:
>> You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
>> price of the laser assembly.
>Can you please recommend some new players comparable to the XA7ES for
>$200USD?
Silly audiophile... Sameness is for 'borgs. <G>
I think you're simply unschooled in Kroologic. Kroologic is an amalgam of
religious devotion, envy, BorgSmugSnot, and paranoia. (Of course it has nothing
whatever in common with human logic.)
To understand the Krooborg's syllogism regarding your CD player, you have to
invert the precepts of your human-style logic and make various allowances for
Mr. Shit's agenda and mental infirmities. To start with, discard the notion that
how the unit sounds has anything to do with actually connecting it to your
system and listening. Rather, to determine how a unit "performs", the Krooborg
must fantasize about being blindfolded and tormented. Well, the torment isn't a
fantasy, it's reality. But for a Normal person, fantasy is permitted in order to
attain the 'borg state of mind.
Now what happens is the slavish devotion to the "fact" that "all
properly-designed CD appliances sound the same". This is a point of 'borgma and
not subject to interpretation, argumentation, or reality. The underlying premise
is that if Arnii Krooborg can't afford to own a superior device, it is known not
to be superior. (That's Kroologic.)
So for you to ask Mr. Shit to name other CD players that are just as good as the
Sony is tantamount to asking him to admit he only earns $16,000 per year,
molests children, and pimps out his poor wife. It won't happen.
paul packer
wrote:
><calc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Could you tell us the nature of the differences between players,
Arnie?
Arny Krueger
Some sound different in a variety of ways and for a variety
of reasons.
George Middius
Another Kroopologist renounces his former faith.
>>I didn't set up the crosspost.
Of course, nothing is ever the Krooborg's fault. The implication that he's
incapable of changing the list of newsgroups that his own messages are posted to
is typical of the Krooborg.
>guiding light
>share in the good news
Praise the Lord.
>therefore no anxiety need be expended
>on their selection--just get the cheapest.
Hallelujah!
>This is the message of simple benediction he spreads,
>and you may be sure I at least am truly grateful for it.
Don't forget to tithe at the church.
>This is how I ended up with a Pioneer 676a that
>sounds exactly like a Sony XA7ES. Will the blessings never cease
>flowing to us from the good old US of A?
Actually, they're both Japanese. Don't you have your share of JEE-zus freaks in
Oz?
Congratulations on kicking Kroopologism. Most of the infected are too stupid to
realize they've been contaminated.
Harry Lavo
Arny, the 563 and 578 players are different players. Any comments I made on
the 563 were simply references to their general acceptance in the audiophile
community, as your post above simply reiterates. I presume that if you
could find me recommending the 563 based on my own experience you would have
done so. I did nothing but give "factual" information about that unit based
on its reputation.
When I was shopping, the 563 had just been replaced by the 578. I had
several modifiers inform me that the 578 was "inferior" to the 563. So I
didn't listen to them, since I suspected that this opinion may have been
based on a) the ease of modifying, or b) the need for modifying. Instead I
listened to the unit myself in several places and then in my own system, as
well as listening to several other players with DVD-A capability. That is
the unit I recommended, based on my own listening.
No amount of tap-dancing about on your part above can change these facts
Arny. Your memory was faulty, and I simply pointed it out. No big deal,
except perhaps to somebody with a poor ego.
Arny Krueger
Your mastery of the obvious is amazing, Harry.
Harry Lavo
And once again Arny you practiced your old trick of simply snipping (without
indication) the part of my post following this sentence, which clearly
reflected back on you.
You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the kitchen, pul down the
blinds, and won't even let anybody else know what's cookin'.
Arny Krueger
Harry, the portion of your post that I snipped was
irrelevant to my comment. Sue me for trying to keep the
discussion on topic.
> You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the
kitchen,
> pul down the blinds, and won't even let anybody else know
> what's cookin'.
Harry, discussing things with you would be more interesting
if you would take responsibility for your own errors. This
whole whine about my snippage is really the smoke screeen
you're trying to put up because you just erroroneously
claimed that SACD and DVD had the identically same dynamic
range, and also the mixed signals you've given to RAHE about
some of the Pioneer inexpensive universal players.
Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly
mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
comments.
ric
> Arny ,a quick question ,as you are in Michigan why do you feel the need to
> post in an Austalian newsgroup.
Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to
FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie.
robert casey
>
>>it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
>> Proper relay muting.
>
>
> Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
> break.
>
causing distortion because of nonlinear effects.
>
>> Decent output stage, which does not include primitive,
>>4558-style output ICs.
>
>
> Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about 4558s
> isn't my problem.
>
know about the 4558 specifically though.
>
Arny Krueger
news:xOUAe.21856$eM6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
>>> it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
>>> Proper relay muting.
>>
>>
>> Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
>> break.
>>
> A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting
> transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear
effects.
But if there are no problems with distortion due to the
muting transistors, then the relay is futile.
>>> Decent output stage, which does not include
primitive,
>>> 4558-style output ICs.
>
>> Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about
4558s
>> isn't my problem.
> Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues.
Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even then.
> Don't know about the 4558 specifically though.
I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear.
Trevor Wilson
> "robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:xOUAe.21856$eM6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
>>>> it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
>>>> Proper relay muting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
>>> break.
>>>
>> A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted muting
>> transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear
> effects.
>
> But if there are no problems with distortion due to the
> muting transistors, then the relay is futile.
**IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids the possibility
entirely. Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many units.
Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever
>
>>>> Decent output stage, which does not include
> primitive,
>>>> 4558-style output ICs.
>>
>>> Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about
> 4558s
>>> isn't my problem.
>
>> Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues.
>
> Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even then.
>
>> Don't know about the 4558 specifically though.
>
> I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear.
**No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent equipment since
before 1980. Even pro audio equipment manufacturers stopped using them two
decades ago. They were resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player
manufacturers awhile ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Harry Lavo
Bullshit. It was dead on topic.
>
>> You not only can't stand the heat, you run out of the
> kitchen,
>> pul down the blinds, and won't even let anybody else know
>> what's cookin'.
>
> Harry, discussing things with you would be more interesting
> if you would take responsibility for your own errors. This
> whole whine about my snippage is really the smoke screeen
> you're trying to put up because you just erroroneously
> claimed that SACD and DVD had the identically same dynamic
> range, and also the mixed signals you've given to RAHE about
> some of the Pioneer inexpensive universal players.
Arny, you are the one making the mistake, attributing my endorsement with
the 578 with the 563a. And no amount of huffing and blowing can change
that. All I have done is correct you.
>
> Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were grossly
> mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
> might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
> comments.
I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking for some
truthfulness. Do you never look at the dynamic range measurements that John
A publishes on every high rez player. If you did, you would note that at
low and midrange frequencies SACD and DVD-A are IDENTICAL and that it is
only in the high frequencies that SACD yields to DVD-A in dynamic range.
That's what I said. It's fact. It's demonstrable. What's your beef?
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:X4-dnZRDL_a...@comcast.com...
>> "robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>
news:xOUAe.21856$eM6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
>>>>> it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
>>>>> Proper relay muting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
>>>> break.
>>>>
>>> A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted
muting
>>> transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear
>> effects.
>>
>> But if there are no problems with distortion due to the
>> muting transistors, then the relay is futile.
>
> **IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids
the
> possibility entirely.
Well, until the contacts get dirty.
> Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many
units.
Never saw the problem even though I've read people get
paranoid about it.
>Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever
Until the contacts get dirty. I've experience that problem
with power amps.
>>>>> Decent output stage, which does not include
>> primitive,
>>>>> 4558-style output ICs.
>>>> Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about
>> 4558s
>>>> isn't my problem.
>>> Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues.
>> Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even
then.
>>> Don't know about the 4558 specifically though.
>> I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear.
> **No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent
> equipment since before 1980.
OK, so all this fairly new pro gear such as the power amp
for my NHT Pro A10s is indecent. Either that or it was made
before 1980 even though that model came out just a few
years ago.
> Even pro audio equipment
> manufacturers stopped using them two decades ago. They
were
> resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player manufacturers
awhile
> ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them.
I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear.
Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that
everybody is.
Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they
are still being used to make quality new equipment.
Arny Krueger
>> Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were
grossly
>> mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
>> might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
>> comments.
> I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking
for
> some truthfulness.
Then clean out your own house first, Harry.
> Do you never look at the dynamic range
> measurements that John A publishes on every high rez
player.
Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the
topic from where you made your gross mistake to something
that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case
you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD
and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross
mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A
equipment.
Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the
tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your
posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying,
first and foremost to yourself.
George Middius
Shit-for-Brains does his hypocracy™ dance.
> Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with
> the tinyist
No such word. Looks like Harry got you so unnerved that you lapsed into
Krooglish.
> amount of honesty
Hahahaha! Now I know you're coming unglued. When AutoLiarBorg starts babbling
about "honesty", it's time to cash in the government bonds.
Trevor Wilson
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
> message news:42d4...@news.comindico.com.au
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:X4-dnZRDL_a...@comcast.com...
>>> "robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>
> news:xOUAe.21856$eM6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
>>>>>> it apart from cheap CD players. These include:
>>>>>> Proper relay muting.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing magic about that. Just something mechanical to
>>>>> break.
>>>>>
>>>> A relay avoids any possible effects of the unmuted
> muting
>>>> transistors causing distortion because of nonlinear
>>> effects.
>>>
>>> But if there are no problems with distortion due to the
>>> muting transistors, then the relay is futile.
>>
>> **IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids
> the
>> possibility entirely.
>
> Well, until the contacts get dirty.
**Not even then. In any case, decent equipment uses hermetically sealed, or
mercury wetted relays. These demonstrate phenomenal reliability. More
importantly, is the fact that relays are almost always used to short the
signal to ground. Dirty contacts (if they ever occur) will therefore be
irelevant.
>
>> Muting transistors cause measureable problems in many
> units.
>
> Never saw the problem even though I've read people get
> paranoid about it.
**And rightfully so.
>
>>Properly implemented relays cause no problems. Ever
>
> Until the contacts get dirty. I've experience that problem
> with power amps.
**Indeed. Series relay contacts can be a problem. However, we're talking
about shunt circuits.
>
>>>>>> Decent output stage, which does not include
>>> primitive,
>>>>>> 4558-style output ICs.
>
>>>>> Nothing magic about that. Terevor, your phobia about
>>> 4558s
>>>>> isn't my problem.
>
>>>> Some op-amps can have crossover distortion issues.
>
>>> Yup in the late 60s and early 70s, but mostly not even
> then.
>
>>>> Don't know about the 4558 specifically though.
>
>>> I do. It's widely used in consumer and pro audio gear.
>
>> **No. 4558 style chips have not been used in any decent
>> equipment since before 1980.
>
> OK, so all this fairly new pro gear such as the power amp
> for my NHT Pro A10s is indecent. Either that or it was made
> before 1980 even though that model came out just a few
> years ago.
**If it uses a 4558-style chip (and depending on how it is used), then it is
crap. 4558-style chips have been available since the late 1970s. There are
far better performing chips available. Such chips are inexpensive and have
been available for decades. Be aware, that I have no issue with 4558-style
chips as part of DC servo, or in LF circuits.
>
>> Even pro audio equipment
>> manufacturers stopped using them two decades ago. They
> were
>> resurrected by cheap Asian CD/DVD player manufacturers
> awhile
>> ago. Decent equipment eschews the use of them.
>
> I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear.
> Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that
> everybody is.
**I'm not paranoid about them. They just have no place (outside DC
functions) in decent audio equipment.
>
> Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they
> are still being used to make quality new equipment.
**No, they're not. Their use is confined exclusively to cheap, Asian
equipment, or to DC and LF functions. They are not used (and haven't for
decades) for high quality equipment. Consumer or pro.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Arny Krueger
message
news:db1a0...@drn.newsguy.com
> Hahahaha! Now I know you're coming unglued. When
AutoLiarBorg
> starts babbling about "honesty", it's time to cash in the
> government bonds.
Looks like Lavo really went over the edge now - he's even
got George Middius supporting him!
Adam F
>
>> Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote
>>> calcerise wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>>> they should all sound the same according to tests.
>>
>> tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony
>> ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I
>> have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD
>> player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
>> player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
>> for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
>> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
>
>
>
> were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your
> three cd players namely:
>
> 1. Sony CDP-715E
>
> 2. Meridian 588
>
> 3. Pioneer DV-575A
>
>
> Were you also comparing their sounds from each other?
>
>
>
Er...suppose he might have been talking about matching with a spirit level
and feeling around the faceplates.
//Adam F
Sander deWaal
>> **IF that is the case, then yes. However, a relay avoids
>the
>> possibility entirely.
>Well, until the contacts get dirty.
A relay with contacts to ground poses no problems.
>I run into 4558s every once in a while in all sorts of gear.
>Just because Trevor is paranoid about them doesn't mean that
>everybody is.
>Yes, 4558s aren't the greatest op amp in the world, but they
>are still being used to make quality new equipment.
The industry standard opamp is still the NE5532/5534/LM833.
4558s are highly sought after by guitar amp enthusiasts.
Nuff said :-)
--
"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Clyde Slick
>
> "Clyde Slick" <Yusta...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:42d36070$1...@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
>>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:eqm6d1p2dotgtu1j7...@4ax.com...
>>> On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, calc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>>>>they should all sound the same according to tests.
>>>
>>>
>>> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
>>>
>>
>
> who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no
> difference. :-)
And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in.
It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
ABX is hideously flawed.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Howard Ferstler
> And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in.
> It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
> ABX is hideously flawed.
....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the
ineffable.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Clyde Slick" <Yusta...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:42d36070$1...@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
> > Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.
> Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us
> who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no
> difference. :-)
Baloney. You either hear differences or you do not. Guys
like you need to hear differences. Otherwise the hobby would
not be of interest. The DBT protocol screws over your need
for the mysterious.
Howard Ferstler
Tristan
> quality (circa '82) Panasonic portable video camera, along with a two
piece
> portable video recorder. Picture quality is superb; low light sensitiviy
> was as good as any Panasonic has ever made. Build quality was
> excellent...this was top of the line gear that together retailed for close
> to $2500 in 1980. It didn't have autofocus, but otherwise met and
exceeded
> in picture and sound quality any tape I have seen made in the last ten
> years. I put it on eBay at $20, and with no reserve, in a ten-day
auction.
> I described it well (much more detailed than here). I felt sure some
> aspiring film student or amateur videographer would grab it. I didn't get
a
> single bid.
>
> But I won't "throw it". I simply can't bring myself to destroy perfectly
> good, superbly built gear.
Couldn't agree more, Dad bought one in early-83 and it's stored away (with
tuner). The picture quality from the tapes from that period is superb (much
better than some 8mm analogue footage from the 90s). Unfortunately it has a
few mechanical problems - nothing that couldn't be fixed I suppose.
Trevor Wilson
"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:42D4413F...@attglobal.net...
**Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those with
real technical qualifications and abilities? Is that opposed to retired
librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance? Is
that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers? Is that opposed to
retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?
You and your comments lack any kind of credibility. Go study up on the Dewey
Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us.
Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in
some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always
admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand. Just a
thought.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Harry Lavo
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:sb2dnagnaY3...@comcast.com
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:WIWdnRJmv-W...@comcast.com...
>
>>> Now Harry if you are willing to admit that you were
> grossly
>>> mistaken about the SACD versus DVD dynamic range issue, I
>>> might be willing to continue forgive and forget your RAHE
>>> comments.
>
>> I'm not looking for your forgiveness, Arny. I'm looking
> for
>> some truthfulness.
>
> Then clean out your own house first, Harry.
>
>> Do you never look at the dynamic range
>> measurements that John A publishes on every high rez
> player.
>
> Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the
> topic from where you made your gross mistake to something
> that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case
> you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD
> and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross
> mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A
> equipment.
>
Oh perish the thought, Arny, that I should be dealing with the 'real world'
as you so derisively put it. That happens to be where I, other audiophiles,
and the equipment manufacturers themselves live, Arny. Theory that can't be
replicated in reality is the stuff of your fantasies, not mine.
> Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the
> tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your
> posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying,
> first and foremost to yourself.
Once again Arny ducks out when his fallacies have been uncovered.
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:42D4413F...@attglobal.net...
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations
> >> in.
> >> It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
> >> ABX is hideously flawed.
> > ....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the
> > ineffable.
> **Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those with
> real technical qualifications and abilities?
At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a
bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of
upscale amps and exotic wires.
> Is that opposed to retired
> librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance?
Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
down.
> Is
> that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
> systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers?
At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built
amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better
than other, decently built versions.
> Is that opposed to
> retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?
At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
audible advantage over thick lamp cord. At least I do not
con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
fairy.
> You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.
This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
because there is something seriously wrong with it.
> Go study up on the Dewey
> Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us.
Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?
> Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in
> some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always
> admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand.
About amps and wires? Is that supposed to be you?
Howard Ferstler
Harry Lavo
"Tristan" <born...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hGXAe.38764$oJ....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Not only that...they are easy to fix. I've had two repairmen swoon over the
thing when I've taken it in for an alignment and tune-up. The jist of their
swoon is "they sure don't build em like that anymore". "And when something
does go wrong, we have to replace the whole thing...not like this baby."
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:xomdnZD0_oy...@comcast.com...
> > "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> Do you never look at the dynamic range
> >> measurements that John A publishes on every high rez
> > player.
> > Harry, as is your usual lying habit, you're changing the
> > topic from where you made your gross mistake to something
> > that sounds like it to the naive readers. In this case
> > you're changing the topic from the dynamic range of the SACD
> > and DVD-A formats which is where you made your gross
> > mistake, to the performance of real-world SACD and DVD-A
> > equipment.
> Oh perish the thought, Arny, that I should be dealing with the 'real world'
> as you so derisively put it. That happens to be where I, other audiophiles,
> and the equipment manufacturers themselves live, Arny. Theory that can't be
> replicated in reality is the stuff of your fantasies, not mine.
> > Harry, when you are willing to start treating me with the
> > tinyist amount of honesty, I'll consider responding to your
> > posts again. But I know that you are unable to stop lying,
> > first and foremost to yourself.
> Once again Arny ducks out when his fallacies have been uncovered.
Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell.
The only advantage SACD and DVD-A have over the CD is
surround sound. Ironically, Dolby Digital and DTS can do the
"subjective" job in that area as well as the so-called
high-resolution formats. In addition, a good, home-based DSP
synthesizing device can take a two-channel CD and often make
it sound subjectively BETTER than the remastered SACD or
DVD-A version, which, if we are talking about older original
releases, are often taken from two-channel masters and given
the DSP treatment by the recording engineers prior to
producing the new version. Note that this refers to
concert-hall realism with classical material and not pop
recordings that often have instruments all around the
listener with SACD and DVD-A versions. Obviously, no amount
of home-based DSP work with the two-channel versions can
duplicate that. But who here with any musical taste cares?
In any case, the dynamic range and extended bandwidth
"advantages" of SACD and DVD-A are meaningless
embellishments to an existing digital technology that needs
no such thing to make music sound more dynamic or
transparent.
Phoniness has finally taken over audio.
Howard Ferstler
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:42D4413F...@attglobal.net...
>> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> >> And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their
>> >> expectations
>> >> in.
>> >> It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
>> >> ABX is hideously flawed.
>
>> > ....to those who are weak of mind and in need of the
>> > ineffable.
>
>> **Is that opposed to retired librarians who refuse to listen to those
>> with
>> real technical qualifications and abilities?
>
> At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a
> bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of
> upscale amps and exotic wires.
**Would you care to phrase that in English?
>
>> Is that opposed to retired
>> librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance?
>
> Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
> audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
> down.
**That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short
circuit is not zero Ohms?
>
>> Is
>> that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
>> systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers?
>
> At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built
> amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better
> than other, decently built versions.
**Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
amplifiers I referred you to. Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers
actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you. Some of us,
however, have some education into the functioning of electronic equipment. I
suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years
studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be
able to converse at the same level.
>
>> Is that opposed to
>> retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?
>
> At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
> audible advantage over thick lamp cord.
**Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME
cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times. You can
ignore facts and figures all you wish. It still does not make you right.
At least I do not
> con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
> fairy.
**Sure you do. You rave about the books you write. Yet you have no in-depth
knowledge about the topic. All you understand is the superficial stuff.
>
>> You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.
>
> This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
> that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
> qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
> versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
> because there is something seriously wrong with it.
**And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others. You
have no experience with the amp in question anyway.
>
>> Go study up on the Dewey
>> Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us.
>
> Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
> cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?
**Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about
audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.
>
>> Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in
>> some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always
>> admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand.
>
> About amps and wires?
**About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions. About
much, much more.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Harry Lavo
Nice little rant, Howard. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the
topic Arny and I were discussing.
Clyde Slick
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>> you don't need the test to do that!
>
> But you do need to properly level match, and you also need
> to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
> about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.
That's the point, it only neuters
one set of preconceotions
And if the person has preconceptions
that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT
neuter those preconceptions.
DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
provide a biased result of there being no difference.
> you do not employ the DBT protocol there is no way to tell
> if the participant is hearing differences or simply
> imagining things - or saying that he hears differences in
> order to sell a product.
>
See, you are using a test for the purpose of
arriving at a predetermined result.
It is NOT a proper test. The DBT test is no way to tell
if those that have a predetermined bias against hearing differences
are actually NOT hearing differences, or if
they are merely 'deluding' themselves in ignoring
differences that actually exist!
> Well, we have all gone over this many times before.
>
And you are as wrong as ever!!!
Howard Ferstler
> > At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a
> > bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of
> > upscale amps and exotic wires.
> **Would you care to phrase that in English?
You con people. In addition, you may also be conning
yourself. I do not know which is worse.
> >> Is that opposed to retired
> >> librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms resistance?
> > Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
> > audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
> > down.
> **That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short
> circuit is not zero Ohms?
As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
with a speaker load it might as well be zero.
> >> Is
> >> that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
> >> systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers?
> > At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built
> > amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better
> > than other, decently built versions.
> **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
> amplifiers I referred you to.
Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at
least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say
otherwise, you are a con artist.
> Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
> engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers
> actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you.
I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like
you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds
superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales
scam.
> Some of us,
> however, have some education into the functioning of electronic equipment.
Maybe so. However, additional education in the realms of
both common sense and ethics would not hurt.
> I
> suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years
> studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be
> able to converse at the same level.
How many additional years of con-artist training will I need
to be as good at the job as you?
> >> Is that opposed to
> >> retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?
> > At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
> > audible advantage over thick lamp cord.
> **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME
> cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.
Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.
> At least I do not
> > con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
> > fairy.
> **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write.
Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case,
getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a
hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me.
> Yet you have no in-depth
> knowledge about the topic.
I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action.
Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
are you sure you care to continue?
> All you understand is the superficial stuff.
For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial
stuff."
> >> You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.
> > This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
> > that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
> > qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
> > versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
> > because there is something seriously wrong with it.
> **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
> technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others.
I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
still nothing exotic about their design.
> You
> have no experience with the amp in question anyway.
I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
with it.
> >> Go study up on the Dewey
> >> Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to us.
> > Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
> > cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?
> **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about
> audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.
I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is
more important than the ability to spout technical jargon
and rave about one's experience repairing and installing
gear.
> >> Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage in
> >> some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could always
> >> admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand.
> > About amps and wires?
> **About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions. About
> much, much more.
OK, here is your chance to repent. Admit that all good amps
sound the same up to their respective clipping points when
driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio
applications good, decently thick lamp cord works as well as
exotic speaker wire. If you say that I will apologize for
what I have written about you.
Howard Ferstler
dean
<yu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1121131732.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > You can easily get one that is just as good new, for the
> > price of the laser assembly.
>
> $200USD?
>
> Thanks
>
With $2000 USD you can browse "e-Bay" or "Audiogon" websites for these:
Meridian 508-24, Pioneer PD-95; Accuphase DP-65V or 70V...etc I have heard
them in action and they are awesome machines and you can probably pick one
up for much less than $2000 USD from the mentioned sites.
Cheers
Dean
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:42D46E83...@attglobal.net...
> > Harry, I really do not know what you are trying to sell.
> >
> > The only advantage SACD and DVD-A have over the CD is
> > surround sound. Ironically, Dolby Digital and DTS can do the
> > "subjective" job in that area as well as the so-called
> > high-resolution formats. In addition, a good, home-based DSP
> > synthesizing device can take a two-channel CD and often make
> > it sound subjectively BETTER than the remastered SACD or
> > DVD-A version, which, if we are talking about older original
> > releases, are often taken from two-channel masters and given
> > the DSP treatment by the recording engineers prior to
> > producing the new version. Note that this refers to
> > concert-hall realism with classical material and not pop
> > recordings that often have instruments all around the
> > listener with SACD and DVD-A versions. Obviously, no amount
> > of home-based DSP work with the two-channel versions can
> > duplicate that. But who here with any musical taste cares?
> >
> > In any case, the dynamic range and extended bandwidth
> > "advantages" of SACD and DVD-A are meaningless
> > embellishments to an existing digital technology that needs
> > no such thing to make music sound more dynamic or
> > transparent.
> >
> > Phoniness has finally taken over audio.
> Nice little rant, Howard. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the
> topic Arny and I were discussing.
Close enough, actually. It has plenty to do with you,
however.
That you con people into getting into an excitable twist
over the so-called superior sound of any kind of player (CD
or DVD, or whatever), particularly if we are talking about
per-channel sound quality (rather than surround-sound
abilities) shows that phoniness has indeed taken over audio.
Sure, some players hold up better than others, but even then
price does not necessarily determine which player will last
and which will not. However, in terms of actual sound
quality I will opine that a good Best-Buy or Circuit City
offered DVD player costing $100 bucks will sound as
subjectively good playing CD recordings as the very best
exotic player you come up with. Yes, your player might have
a measurable edge, but the ears will not pick up on that
advantage.
Yeah, I realize that selling people on high-end and
high-priced sound is important to you. It isn't important to
me, however.
Howard Ferstler
MINe 109
Howard Ferstler <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> If you say that I will apologize for
> what I have written about you.
Careful! Howard's been known to retract an apology.
Stephen
Howard Ferstler
As soon as the con artist puts his con-artist suit back on
and resumes his game.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
Any good player selling for under $200 (note that he did not
say $2000) should work as well as any exotic selling for any
price. When it breaks, replace it with a newer model selling
for about the same thing. You can buy a lot of cheap players
for what one exotic costs and as long as it works OK it will
sound as good as any of them.
Howard Ferstler
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:42D46A8B...@attglobal.net...
>
>> > At least I am not a low-life con artist who sells people a
>> > bill of goods when it comes to the so-called sound of
>> > upscale amps and exotic wires.
>
>> **Would you care to phrase that in English?
>
> You con people.
**Prove it.
In addition, you may also be conning
> yourself. I do not know which is worse.
>
>> >> Is that opposed to retired
>> >> librarians who imagine that a short circuit offers zero Ohms
>> >> resistance?
>
>> > Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
>> > audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
>> > down.
>
>> **That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short
>> circuit is not zero Ohms?
>
> As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
> ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
> with a speaker load it might as well be zero.
**Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to
state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything
about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make fundamental
errors.
>
>> >> Is
>> >> that opposed to retired librarians who have no idea how the protection
>> >> systems operate in domestic (or any other) amplifiers?
>
>> > At least I do not claim that one's own, specially built
>> > amplifier has mysterious qualities that make it sound better
>> > than other, decently built versions.
>
>> **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
>> amplifiers I referred you to.
>
> Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at
> least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say
> otherwise, you are a con artist.
**Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure identically
to them. There has never been any argument over this point.
>
>> Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
>> engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers
>> actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you.
>
> I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like
> you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds
> superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales
> scam.
**IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be entitled
to say so.
>
>> Some of us,
>> however, have some education into the functioning of electronic
>> equipment.
>
> Maybe so. However, additional education in the realms of
> both common sense and ethics would not hurt.
**I agree.
>
>> I
>> suggest you get off your butt and do likewise. After you've spent 4 years
>> studying electronics and 30 odd years with hands on experience, we'll be
>> able to converse at the same level.
>
> How many additional years of con-artist training will I need
> to be as good at the job as you?
**When will you stop beating the crap out of your wife?
>
>> >> Is that opposed to
>> >> retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?
>
>> > At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
>> > audible advantage over thick lamp cord.
>
>> **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME
>> cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.
>
> Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.
**Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that is
the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker
cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from low
inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong.
>
>> At least I do not
>> > con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
>> > fairy.
>
>> **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write.
>
> Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case,
> getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a
> hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me.
**I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact.
>
>> Yet you have no in-depth
>> knowledge about the topic.
>
> I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action.
**You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who actually
know their business, however.
> Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
> are you sure you care to continue?
**I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of yourself.
>
>> All you understand is the superficial stuff.
>
> For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial
> stuff."
**Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will be
fine.
>
>> >> You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.
>
>> > This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
>> > that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
>> > qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
>> > versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
>> > because there is something seriously wrong with it.
>
>> **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
>> technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others.
>
> I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
> matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
> notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
> respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
> speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
> speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
> conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
> rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
> still nothing exotic about their design.
**How would you know?
>
>> You
>> have no experience with the amp in question anyway.
>
> I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
> your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
> with it.
**IOW: You don't know.
>
>> >> Go study up on the Dewey
>> >> Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to
>> >> us.
>
>> > Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
>> > cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?
>
>> **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about
>> audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.
>
> I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is
> more important than the ability to spout technical jargon
> and rave about one's experience repairing and installing
> gear.
**It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when turned
up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is sadly
lacking.
>
>> >> Even better, you could actually learn some circuit analysis and engage
>> >> in
>> >> some practical experience and get back to us. Of course, you could
>> >> always
>> >> admit your error and apologise to those who actually understand.
>
>> > About amps and wires?
>
>> **About the lies you wrote about me. About your incorrect assumptions.
>> About
>> much, much more.
>
> OK, here is your chance to repent.
**Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you
feel necessary.
Admit that all good amps
> sound the same up to their respective clipping points when
> driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio
> applications good,
**I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do, indeed,
sound identical.
decently thick lamp cord works as well as
> exotic speaker wire.
**For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no.
If you say that I will apologize for
> what I have written about you.
**No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eqm6d1p2dotgtu1j7...@4ax.com...
> > On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, calc...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
> >>they should all sound the same according to tests.
> >In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
> > players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
> Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.
You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
says more about you as a true believer than it does about
any kind of audio gear.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> "paul packer" <pac...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42d3d05c...@news.iprimus.com.au
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:51:05 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> <calc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1121133578....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> >>
> >>
> >>> Since Arny believes all CD players sound the same.
> >>
> >> This would be a lie.
> >
> > Could you tell us the nature of the differences between
> > players, Arnie?
> Some sound different in a variety of ways and for a variety
> of reasons.
But most listeners would never hear those differences when
listening to musical source material, particularly for
pleasure.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.
> > You are just trying to rationalize the fact that you simply
> > must have something exotic and esoteric to believe in. (That
> > this involves audio gear and not some kind of religious
> > deity and a need for salvation shows a monumental smallness
> > of mind.) That you place expectation effects higher up on
> > the scale than simply not hearing differences during a DBT
> > says more about you as a true believer than it does about
> > any kind of audio gear.
> Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
> for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
> that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation
> effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
> this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
> producing your "expected" results.
> the units
This is baloney. You either hear differences or you do not.
Howard Ferstler
Clyde Slick
Take a good look at the test methodology, it only accounts
for eliminating one side of the expectation effects, the expectation
that there will be differences. It does not address eliminating expectation
effects, based upon an expectation that they will sound the same. Thus,
this so-called "unbiased" test is actually quite biased towards
producing your "expected" results.
the units
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Howard Ferstler
But you do need to properly level match, and you also need
to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior. If
you do not employ the DBT protocol there is no way to tell
if the participant is hearing differences or simply
imagining things - or saying that he hears differences in
order to sell a product.
Well, we have all gone over this many times before.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> >> > Close enough to zero to essentially shunt all of an amp's
> >> > audible output around the speaker load and shut the amp
> >> > down.
> >> **That is not what you stated previously. Do you now admit that a short
> >> circuit is not zero Ohms?
> > As one real expert posted previously, yes, it is not zero
> > ohms. But for all practical purposes, when it is in parallel
> > with a speaker load it might as well be zero.
> **Without knowing the nature of the short circuit, it is not possible to
> state this with any certainty. But you'd know that, if you knew anything
> about electronics. Of course, you don't, so you continue to make fundamental
> errors.
First, I served four years in the USAF as an electronics
technician, and so I do know something about electronics.
Not college level, but not chopped-liver level, either.
Second, I know that if you put a speaker in parallel with a
load that is but a small fraction of an ohm no significant
sound will come from that speaker. How could it when the
vast bulk of the current flow is heading through that
borderline short?
> >> **Good. Nor do I. There is absolutely nothing mysterious about the
> >> amplifiers I referred you to.
> > Good. That means they sound like all other good amps, at
> > least up to their respective clipping levels. If you say
> > otherwise, you are a con artist.
> **Indeed. They sound identical to other amplifiers which measure identically
> to them. There has never been any argument over this point.
Yeah, but below a certain point ultra-super measurements are
gilding the lily. I claim that even a good, mid-priced
receiver will have as good an amplifier sound as your exotic
amp. Add to that the existence of a preamp section, surround
sound (still more channels) and a tuner, and the receiver
wins the contest, hands down. Your amp is a money pit.
> >> Nothing whatsoever. Just good, solid
> >> engineering. Oops, I forgot. You don't have a clue about how amplifiers
> >> actually work, do you? ALL amplifiers are a mystery to you.
> > I know enough about them to realize that when somebody like
> > you claims that a super-duper amp he is dealing with sounds
> > superior to all others that individual is pulling a sales
> > scam.
> **IF I had said such a thing (which I have not), then you would be entitled
> to say so.
OK, so your amp sounds like all other good amps. Good for
it. Glad we have reached this agreement.
> >> >> Is that opposed to
> >> >> retired librarians who have no understanding of Thevenin's Theorem?
> >> > At least I do not claim that exotic speaker wires have an
> >> > audible advantage over thick lamp cord.
>
> >> **Of course you don't! You're an idiot. I've patiently explained how SOME
> >> cables can affect SOME loudspeakers in SOME systems, many times.
> > Yeah, when the speakers are 100 yards from the amp.
> **Actually, not that far. Depending on the speaker, of course. And that is
> the difference between you and me. You state, unequivocally, that speaker
> cables are all the same. I argue that certain systems can benefit from low
> inductance cables. IOW: You are wrong.
Such speaker systems are too problematic to fool with. Just
how long a speaker run are we talking about, by the way.
> >> At least I do not
> >> > con people into believing the audio equivalent of the tooth
> >> > fairy.
> >> **Sure you do. You rave about the books you write.
> > Interestingly, so have others raved about them. In any case,
> > getting into a insult-trading contest here is doing you a
> > hell of a lot more damage than it is doing me.
> **I'm not insulting you. I'm simply stating fact.
Actually, you are getting into a pissing contest here that
is doing you not a lot of good out there in the business
world. Believe me, you have a lot more to lose here than I.
> >> Yet you have no in-depth
> >> knowledge about the topic.
> > I know enough to be able to spot a con artist in action.
> **You may well do so. You are also incapable of spotting people who actually
> know their business, however.
Yeah, and that ain't you.
> > Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
> > are you sure you care to continue?
> **I have no problem with allowing you to make a complete idiot of yourself.
Well, they will do me no harm, whatsoever. On the other
hand, you will at least lose some points in your home area
because of your performance here. I suggest you cut and run
while you have the chance.
> >> All you understand is the superficial stuff.
> > For guys like you, amp and wire scams are "superficial
> > stuff."
> **Are they? I presume you have some actual evidence? A Google cite will be
> fine.
Common sense works better.
> >> >> You and your comments lack any kind of credibility.
> >> > This, from a guy who claims that his special amp (or one
> >> > that he sells, since I do not believe he designed it) has
> >> > qualities that set it apart from all other decently designed
> >> > versions. Yeah, it may sound different, but if so that is
> >> > because there is something seriously wrong with it.
> >> **And yet, you speak from a position of extreme ignorance. You have no
> >> technical abilities to understand what sets some amps apart form others.
> > I can fairly listen to the things, pal. I can compare at
> > matched levels and can determine that exotic technologies
> > notwithstanding, all good amps sound the same up to their
> > respective clipping levels. OK, with really wild and weird
> > speaker loads some amps have advantages. But with the
> > speakers most people use, amps is amps. And there are
> > conventional amps out there that are also able to handle
> > rather weird loads. They may cost a bit more, but there is
> > still nothing exotic about their design.
> **How would you know?
They sounded the same as all the others, tweako. What else
do you want other than they all sounded the same? Actually,
the Son of Ampzilla unit I recently reviewed was
bulletproof. However, with normal speaker loads it sounded
no better than a rather old Yamaha integrated amp I had on
hand. Admittedly, the speaker load was not particularly
demanding.
> >> You
> >> have no experience with the amp in question anyway.
> > I have heard and compared enough good amps to know that if
> > your amp sounds different from them there is something wrong
> > with it.
> **IOW: You don't know.
Well, you are the guy who claims that the amp sounds
"better" than most of the competition. If the competition
all sounds pretty much the same, I think that we can
conclude that those amps sound that way because they have
inaudible distortion. I mean what is the chance that all of
those somewhat different topologies all had identical
audible distortions? If your amp sounds different from the
crowd, as far as I am concerned it is less accurate than
they.
> >> >> Go study up on the Dewey
> >> >> Decimal System (or whatever is used in libraries now) and get back to
> >> >> us.
> >> > Why on earth would you want to learn about a library
> >> > cataloging system that went out of date decades ago?
> >> **Exactly. It has as much relevance to all of us, as your comments about
> >> audio equipment. You have no real knowledge about what you speak.
> > I can spot a con artist, and it this day and age that is
> > more important than the ability to spout technical jargon
> > and rave about one's experience repairing and installing
> > gear.
> **It is very important, when discussing why an amp shuts down, when turned
> up to moderate levels. And it is in this area where your knowledge is sadly
> lacking.
Hey, I never said it would not shut down. I simply said that
at any level it would not be able to put any sound into the
speakers. This would be the case, because the VAST bulk of
the current flow would be through the shorted-together lead
in parallel with the speaker.
> > OK, here is your chance to repent.
> **Repent what, exactly? Be precise and use Google quotes as often as you
> feel necessary.
Just follow the guide I wrote below.
> Admit that all good amps
> > sound the same up to their respective clipping points when
> > driving normal speaker loads and admit that for home-audio
> > applications good,
> **I will admit that all amps, which demonstrate identical specs, do, indeed,
> sound identical.
And now I suppose you are going to say that your very
special amp has specs that are superior to all (or at least
most) others. My contention, however, is that once you get
below a certain audibility threshold all amps, including
yours, assuming it is properly designed, sound the same - at
least with standard speaker loads and below clipping levels.
The funny thing about you is that you probably sell people
speakers that require an amp like yours. You basically force
people into a situation where they have to purchase an
exotic amp to power those oddball speaker loads. Yeah, I am
sure you do not do this all the time, but when the
opportunity knocks you step up to the plate and take a swing
at the ball.
> decently thick lamp cord works as well as
> > exotic speaker wire.
> **For most systems, yes. For SOME systems, no.
Systems that nobody would use in a typical home-listening
environment. Tell me, just how often do you recommend heavy
lamp cord for typical home installations? Do you push the
exotic stuff even in those more mundane situations, as well
as in these situations that involve SOME systems?
> If you say that I will apologize for
> > what I have written about you.
> **No, you won't. You're pig-ignorant. You will NEVER apologise to me.
Well, not now I won't.
Howard Ferstler
Clyde Slick
you don't need the test to do that!
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
Gordon
"ric" <nos...@home.com> wrote in message news:42D415DF...@home.com...
> Gordon wrote:
>
>> Arny ,a quick question ,as you are in Michigan why do you feel the need
>> to
>> post in an Austalian newsgroup.
>
> Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to
> FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie.
My appologies , in this case , but most of the Ozzy posters will know what I
was getting at.
Gordon
dean
You can buy a lot of cheap players
> for what one exotic costs and as long as it works OK it will
> sound as good as any of them.
** You're paying for what you get. Just like you can not expect Proton's
vehicles to give you the same driving experience as Lexus vehicles-
regarless of physical appearances.
Cheers
Dean
calc...@hotmail.com
nicer to use. If you want okay for cheap buy a $39 Apex at WalMart. It
will work about a year then buy another. If you don't need DVD-A or
SACD, and don't mind the nasty smell it gives off-why,I'm not sure, but
it has no toobs and Margaret can't possibly put out enough slime to
smell that many of them up-and don't mind the fact you will have to
dismantle it and use a 9V battery to open the drawer to get the last CD
it plays because it will trap your disc when it dies, well, go for it.
Stewart Pinkerton
<Yusta...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:eqm6d1p2dotgtu1j7...@4ax.com...
>> On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, calc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>>>they should all sound the same according to tests.
>>
>>
>>In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
>> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
>>
>
>Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.
Indeed - that's why the tests are done blind...........
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
<Yusta...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:3t2dnYqMZtk...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <Yusta...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:42d36070$1...@spool9-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:eqm6d1p2dotgtu1j7...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 11 Jul 2005 17:27:35 -0700, calc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>>>>>they should all sound the same according to tests.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
>>>> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Damn it, there are those pesky expectation effects again.
>>
>> Clyde, don't you know that "expectation effects" only apply to those of us
>> who disagree? Has nothing to do with those who *know* there is no
>> difference. :-)
>
>And the abx test removes our expectations, yet leaves their expectations in.
>It is a more biased test than subjective listening!!!
>ABX is hideously flawed.
Bullshit. What you mean is that ABX doesn't support your absolute
knowledge that 'high-end' designer label gear *must* sound better than
'Chinky cheapies'.
paul packer
<fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Given that this series of posts is being read in Australia,
Wrong, Howard. In Australia we're wise enough to skip over posts
marked "Howard Ferstler".
Stewart Pinkerton
<Yusta...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Howard Ferstler" <fer...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:42D4859F...@attglobal.net...
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>> you don't need the test to do that!
>>
>> But you do need to properly level match, and you also need
>> to go the DBT route if the participant has preconceptions
>> about a favored amp or set of wires sounding superior.
>
>That's the point, it only neuters
>one set of preconceotions
>And if the person has preconceptions
>that they will sound the same, the test WILL NOT
>neuter those preconceptions.
>
>DBT tests for audio are actually designed to
>provide a biased result of there being no difference.
Bullshit. They're used every day by mainstream manufacturers to
determine whether design changes had any *real* audible effect.
Like most of the 'subjectivists', you're ignoring reality to push your
own prejudices, and bitching about ABX because it doesn't support your
fantasising about the sound of 'high-end' equipment.
Stewart Pinkerton
Bullshit. Those tests are taken by people from both sides of the
fence. The results are the same, only the reactions vary! :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>
>> Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote
>>> calcerise wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Arny isn't too keen on actually listening to audio products, since
>>> they should all sound the same according to tests.
>>
>> And indeed the good ones *do*, if we're talking about *listening*
>> tests. I have a Sony CDP-715E, one of the best-performing players Sony
>> ever made, although lacking the 'battleship' build of the XA7ES, I
>> have access to a Meridian 588, probably the finest 'high tech' SOTA CD
>> player on the planet, and I also own a Pioneer DV-575A 'universal'
>> player that cost less than the quoted price of a new laser assembly
>> for the XA7ES. In level-matched blind listening tests, these three
>> players sound identical - as any reasonable person would expect.
>
>
>
>Any reasonable person would most likely also ask that ... when you
>were performing a level-matched blind listening test among your
>three cd players namely:
>
>1. Sony CDP-715E
>
>2. Meridian 588
>
>3. Pioneer DV-575A
>
>
>Were you also comparing their sounds from each other?
I have no idea what that means.
paul packer
>Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to
>FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie.
This one was, but Arnie DOES post here specifically though from time
to time. The question is valid.
Stewart Pinkerton
>I remember when the XA5 and 7ES came out, had some of the first ones to
>try out. Found them to be bright as anything, especially the XA5ES,
>even using the digital out it proved to be bright.
Well, that's about as dumb a comment as it gets.................
>I also remember Greg Borrowmans first review on the 5, he couldnt bring
>himself to say it but read between the lines and he basically was
>saying its bright as all buggery! LOL
Yeah, riggghht.
paul packer
<fer...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Some sound different in a variety of ways and for a variety
>> of reasons.
This is worryingly vague, Arnie. You sound like a criminal on the
verge of a confession but still hedging.
>
>But most listeners would never hear those differences when
>listening to musical source material, particularly for
>pleasure.
Howard, many CD player can't be listened to for pleasure. That's the
point.
Scot Clayton
>>Gordon, read your headers! This thread has been crossposted to
>>FOUR newsgroups, only one of which is Aussie.
>
> My appologies , in this case , but most of the Ozzy posters will know what I
> was getting at.
How about the Black Sabbath ones? ;-)
--
--Scot
www.RonnieJamesDio.org
www.SMCProductions.org
www.CraigGoldy.org
www.TonyIommi.org
www.ScotClayton.org
http://scotclayton.blogspot.com/
paul packer
<George...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>This is how I ended up with a Pioneer 676a that
>>sounds exactly like a Sony XA7ES. Will the blessings never cease
>>flowing to us from the good old US of A?
>
>Actually, they're both Japanese.
I was referring to the advice, George, not the products.