Why tubes are the paradigm
Andre Jute
> A tube amp * must* do something different.
No. A tube amp must strive for what has always been its ideal, the open
window on the concert hall.
It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
some self-mimicking biological growth.
In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes. I
have explained elsewhere which tubes, and how arranged. Here, to avoid
the point once more becoming lost in flame wars made by people with
vested interests, I shall not again stress the topology of tubes
preferred, I shall merely add that the highest-ranking solid state amp
in these tests with professional musicians is one that is not highly
rated by audiophiles (because it is too common, not expensive and
special enough for them?) or by engineers (who consider it
old-fashioned).
To stress the obvious, all amplifiers of whatever topology must strive
for fidelity. The only question remaining is the yardstick by which we
measure that fidelity. In a perfect world all amplifiers of whatever
kind of melted sand enclosing either a vacuum or gubbins, however
arranged or combined (including hybrids), will be indistinguishable to
qualified ears. (1)
Andre Jute
(1) Dull, I know. But have no fear it will happen anytime soon. The
entire engineering establishment is off on a hiding after vanishing
distortion 10 kiloBels below aural limits for a dolphin; they're doing
what they always did but more so because they don't have any new ideas.
That part of the audiophile establishment which isn't a doormat for
these misguided engineers is on a mission to tune their amps to their
own taste regardless of the music, which is a positive feedback cycle
clearly leading to excess, isolation and disillusionment; it is very
difficult to convince people that artistic expression is a matter of
extreme discipline, not loose self-indulgence. Those who pay more than
lip service to the open window on the concert hall is a vanishing
fraction too small to be called a minority. (The iPodders who come into
my listening room with my son can't even hear that my Quad ESL63 are
superior to their earphones, or that their music is compressed. They
prefer my computer speakers -- after graphic equalization down to 15kHz
-- because that is what they are used to.) My expectation is that home
video will put the audiophile business entire out of business before
the search for the open window on the concert hall succeeds.
Sander deWaal
>Sander deWaal wrote:
>> A tube amp * must* do something different.
>No. A tube amp must strive for what has always been its ideal, the open
>window on the concert hall.
Which isn't in contradiction with what you wrote below.
My comment was aimed towards Graham's dead old beaten-to-pulp-horse
that :
"Surely the ultimate hi-fidelity amp simply shouldn't have a *sound* ?
That's the whole point. The perfect tube amp should be audibly
indistinguishable from the perfect SS amp."
With the latter statement, I diagree.
I have seldom heard a SS amp do what it is required to do, to open the
window on the concert hall, on the place of my desire, with the
orchestra of my choice, etc.
My tube- and even hybrid amps do that so much better.
HiFi is subjective.
Mike McKelvy ("NYOB" in RAO) says that HiFi is the exact reproduction
of what is on the source disk.
My definition of HiFi is the closest approach to what I hear in the
concert hall, the jazz venue or the rock concert.
All of which are still not possible with whatever audio gear I've
heard.
Quads come close, though.
My Maggies excel in reproducing natural sounding grand pianos, which
happens to be my favourite instrument.
Therefor, I forgive them their many other flaws.
Full post below:
"Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> said:
--
"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Arny Krueger
"Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134144209.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
> refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
> people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
> I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
> an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
> want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
> some self-mimicking biological growth.
That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.
> In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.
Probably due to a number of factors.
(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That they
would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.
(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for sure that
they are biased against modern technology.
(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who must
endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.
(4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often very
sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion, find a
trained technical listener.
Pooh Bear
Sander deWaal wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> >Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> >> A tube amp * must* do something different.
>
> >No. A tube amp must strive for what has always been its ideal, the open
> >window on the concert hall.
Ditto *any* amplifier !
The technology used is incidental.
> Which isn't in contradiction with what you wrote below.
> My comment was aimed towards Graham's dead old beaten-to-pulp-horse
> that :
> "Surely the ultimate hi-fidelity amp simply shouldn't have a *sound* ?
> That's the whole point. The perfect tube amp should be audibly
> indistinguishable from the perfect SS amp."
>
> With the latter statement, I diagree.
If any 2 amplifers are audibly distinguishable then at least one of them is
thus audible because of some colouration that it adds to ( or removes ) from
the 'perfect sound'. In practice it'll be becasue both amplifers have
imperfections of course.
Hiwever if we imagine that one amplifier is indeed 'perfect' then any other
that sounds different must be 'imperfect'. Simple logic shows that 2 perfect
amplifers must therefore be indistinguishable.
If you're incapable of understanding that then you're really working from a
standpoint of intellectual dishonesty.
>
> I have seldom heard a SS amp do what it is required to do, to open the
> window on the concert hall, on the place of my desire, with the
> orchestra of my choice, etc.
Which suggests to me that you haven't ever heard a *really good* SS amp.
> My tube- and even hybrid amps do that so much better.
So you're starting from a preconceived position of belief that SS amps can't
equal toobs. It seems obvious to me that you're not looking for an objective
result.
Please define 'better' btw !
Graham
Arny Krueger
"Sander deWaal" <nos...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:pqcjp15h7v6b96cmp...@4ax.com...
> With the latter statement, I diagree.
> I have seldom heard a SS amp do what it is required to do, to open the
> window on the concert hall, on the place of my desire, with the orchestra
> of my choice, etc.
deWaal's criteria is grotesquely flawed because it is dependent on so many
uncontrolled variables.
It easily admits criterial biasing.
I have seldom heard a good SS amp that caused any audible degradation of the
sound.
Patrick Turner
Andre Jute wrote:
> Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> > A tube amp * must* do something different.
>
> No. A tube amp must strive for what has always been its ideal, the open
> window on the concert hall.
No??
I think the poster was trying to say what you say about the window,
and that he implied that other amps tend towards a small window, a port
hole perhaps.
Tubes should remove the window, and the whole wall, and anything between
you and the concert,
and that is different to what some other systems achieve.
>
>
> It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
> refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
> people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
> I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
> an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
> want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
> some self-mimicking biological growth.
The bigger the window, the better, and if a system is a great demolisher
of walls and widows, and a torrid ripper of veils and smasher of
screens in the way, then we are progressing.....
>
>
> In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes. I
> have explained elsewhere which tubes, and how arranged. Here, to avoid
> the point once more becoming lost in flame wars made by people with
> vested interests, I shall not again stress the topology of tubes
> preferred, I shall merely add that the highest-ranking solid state amp
> in these tests with professional musicians is one that is not highly
> rated by audiophiles (because it is too common, not expensive and
> special enough for them?) or by engineers (who consider it
> old-fashioned).
Hmm, most musos muse a lot, and are poor as a result,
and cannot afford what they love, which are tubes of course,
for general hi-fi listening, unless they are die hard rock lovers
who lerve MeatLoaf at 120 dB, and tubes will not improve that experience.
But I have not met one muso who likes the sound SS instrument amps.
I have met a few with such amps that have blown up,
and which are harder to repair, so its another reason why they don't like
trannys for the guitar amp.
>
> To stress the obvious, all amplifiers of whatever topology must strive
> for fidelity. The only question remaining is the yardstick by which we
> measure that fidelity. In a perfect world all amplifiers of whatever
> kind of melted sand enclosing either a vacuum or gubbins, however
> arranged or combined (including hybrids), will be indistinguishable to
> qualified ears. (1)
Musicians amps are the big exception, and they must have
oddles of the right sounding distortion and artifacts or they are deemed
boring by musos who use them.
But hi-fi is another matter, and yeah, accuracy is important,
and should be accurate enough, so that further efforts to increase
accuracy do not yeild any meaningful improovement,
so going from a tube amp making 0.02% thd at a watt which is typical in a
good tube amp
to having 0.0001% at 200 watts in a Halcro won't do much except empty
a bank account faster.
>
>
> Andre Jute
>
> (1) Dull, I know. But have no fear it will happen anytime soon. The
> entire engineering establishment is off on a hiding after vanishing
> distortion 10 kiloBels below aural limits for a dolphin; they're doing
> what they always did but more so because they don't have any new ideas.
That 0.0001% is supposed to be very saleable if marketed.....
>
> That part of the audiophile establishment which isn't a doormat for
> these misguided engineers is on a mission to tune their amps to their
> own taste regardless of the music, which is a positive feedback cycle
> clearly leading to excess, isolation and disillusionment; it is very
> difficult to convince people that artistic expression is a matter of
> extreme discipline, not loose self-indulgence. Those who pay more than
> lip service to the open window on the concert hall is a vanishing
> fraction too small to be called a minority.
Fetch me a large 15LB sledge hammer.
I used to swing these with great gusto at age 30.
You need good iron for music they say.
Let's remove the window, and the wall as well.......
> (The iPodders who come into
> my listening room with my son can't even hear that my Quad ESL63 are
> superior to their earphones, or that their music is compressed. They
> prefer my computer speakers -- after graphic equalization down to 15kHz
> -- because that is what they are used to.) My expectation is that home
> video will put the audiophile business entire out of business before
> the search for the open window on the concert hall succeeds.
Modernity looks set to ruin the up and coming generation.
But every gathering of old farts says that about youngans.
It all started with the invention of the phonograph, to which some
old gent lamented in 1890 that
" and now these idiots with no talent will have their awful music
preserved forever..."
A small minority of these modern young whipper snappers
discover real music without any amplification, and things are about
like they were in 1955, when only a few ppl were extremely
fussy about the home listening experience, and
kept themselves poor replacing MC carts and KT66,
only now they keep poor with Halcros, and the latest
disc players, and buying discs with music that was recorded
30 years ago, because much modern music is so boring.
HT offers a PICTURE, and as soon as you have one, viewers concentration on
the sound is reduced by
-25dB, the picture is what dominates the mind, so the sound does not have
to be any good,
and the DVD still sells ok.
In 20 years there won't be any actors and actresses, animation will look
quite real,
and it will all be special effects.....
Goodness knows how fantasy will be piped into the brain, but
direct brain transducers should liberate us from ear and eye use, and give
us far more real
sensations of being right there in movie scenes.
Maybe a few old dudes will be using a triode or two, and
spinning a vinyl with an occasional CD on some old CD player that
still works but which nobody can fix if it stops.
Somewhere there will be someone trying to get a 16mm movie to run on an
ancient
projector.
And perhaps 2 ppl will still enjoy reading a book, and lord forbid,
using their imaginations, something which may be legislated against
at the current rate of "progressive government legislation".
Patrick Turner.
Ruud Broens
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4399BCF9...@hotmail.com...
:
:
: Sander deWaal wrote:
:
: > "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> said:
: >
: > >Sander deWaal wrote:
: >
: > >> A tube amp * must* do something different.
: >
: > >No. A tube amp must strive for what has always been its ideal, the open
: > >window on the concert hall.
:
: Ditto *any* amplifier !
:
: The technology used is incidental.
:
: > Which isn't in contradiction with what you wrote below.
: > My comment was aimed towards Graham's dead old beaten-to-pulp-horse
: > that :
: > "Surely the ultimate hi-fidelity amp simply shouldn't have a *sound* ?
: > That's the whole point. The perfect tube amp should be audibly
: > indistinguishable from the perfect SS amp."
: >
: > With the latter statement, I diagree.
:
: If any 2 amplifers are audibly distinguishable then at least one of them is
: thus audible because of some colouration that it adds to ( or removes ) from
: the 'perfect sound'. In practice it'll be becasue both amplifers have
: imperfections of course.
:
: Hiwever if we imagine that one amplifier is indeed 'perfect' then any other
: that sounds different must be 'imperfect'. Simple logic shows that 2 perfect
: amplifers must therefore be indistinguishable.
and simple logic tells us your first sentence was not what you had in mind;
instead, it's the 'flawless ss amp yardstick' you are applying - boooring.
:
: If you're incapable of understanding that then you're really working from a
: standpoint of intellectual dishonesty.
:
: >
: > I have seldom heard a SS amp do what it is required to do, to open the
: > window on the concert hall, on the place of my desire, with the
: > orchestra of my choice, etc.
:
: Which suggests to me that you haven't ever heard a *really good* SS amp.
:
: > My tube- and even hybrid amps do that so much better.
:
: So you're starting from a preconceived position of belief that SS amps can't
: equal toobs. It seems obvious to me that you're not looking for an objective
: result.
:
: Please define 'better' btw !
:
:
: Graham
:
same question for you : define better !
(please don't give us any 0.0003 % dummy loaded measurement crap:-)
Rudy
Sander deWaal
>Hiwever if we imagine that one amplifier is indeed 'perfect' then any other
>that sounds different must be 'imperfect'. Simple logic shows that 2 perfect
>amplifers must therefore be indistinguishable.
Suppose a DBT between 2 amplifiers that were different in a sighted
listening test.
Suppose also that in the DBT, differences exist and are reliably
detected.
Which one of the 2 is the better amplifier?
Wouldn't that depend on personal preference?
Of course, when measurements show that one of the 2 has higher
distortion of some kind, it would be worse in the sense of the known
definition of HiFi.
But as I already said earlier, my definition of HiFi isn't "an exact
reproduction of what's on the disc" , but a reproduction of the real
event.
Since I have never attended most real events that I have on CD or LP,
I must rely on what sounds "good" to me.
And there you have it.
You may call that "MyFi", I don't care, as long as the result pleases
and satisfies me.
So far, it does with my tube and hybrid amplifiers, and it doesn't
with most commercial +300 watt BJT monsters.
Ruud Broens
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:HKudnViDgpGeWQTe...@comcast.com...
:
: "Sander deWaal" <nos...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
Oh, yeah, like Pinkerton, you know this because you compared it to the
sound of the input signal,
LOL
:-)
Rudy
Arny Krueger
"Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:4399ca93$0$66850$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> LOL
What's funny about that?
What's wrong with stright-wire-bypass tests, except that a lot of tubed amps
fail them?
I also know what the amp sounds like playing recordings I made, in my
listening room and with my associated equipment.
Pooh Bear
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134144209.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
> > refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
> > people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
> > I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
> > an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
> > want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
> > some self-mimicking biological growth.
>
> That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
> imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
> openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
> likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even soloists,
> particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
> extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.
My violinist next-door neighbour uses a 'ghettoblaster' type stereo.
I wouldn't expect him to recognise or discern the subtleties of reproduction of
recorded sound in a month of Sundays.
Graham
Ruud Broens
:
: "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
: news:4399ca93$0$66850$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
: >
: > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
: > news:HKudnViDgpGeWQTe...@comcast.com...
: > :
: > : "Sander deWaal" <nos...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
: > : news:pqcjp15h7v6b96cmp...@4ax.com...
: > :
: > : > With the latter statement, I diagree.
: > : > I have seldom heard a SS amp do what it is required to do, to open the
: > : > window on the concert hall, on the place of my desire, with the
: > orchestra
: > : > of my choice, etc.
: > :
: > : deWaal's criteria is grotesquely flawed because it is dependent on so
: > many
: > : uncontrolled variables.
: > :
: > : It easily admits criterial biasing.
: > :
: > : I have seldom heard a good SS amp that caused any audible degradation of
: > the
: > : sound.
:
: > Oh, yeah, like Pinkerton, you know this because you compared it to the
: > sound of the input signal,
:
: > LOL
:
: What's funny about that?
because, at best, you compare the input signal amplified by another amp,
connected to the same speaker if you don't see a methodological problem
there,
then, well..
but don't claim it gives you anything truthful to say about the matter :-)
: What's wrong with stright-wire-bypass tests, except that a lot of tubed amps
: fail them?
hmm, by Arny-logic, i'd have to say: this proves the straight-wire-bypass
test is flawed.
:-)
: I also know what the amp sounds like playing recordings I made, in my
: listening room and with my associated equipment.
:
R.
Sander deWaal
>What's wrong with stright-wire-bypass tests, except that a lot of tubed amps
>fail them?
I'm beginning to believe your biggest problem is your lack of
imagination, you simply can't think outside of your box.
So what if a tube amp (or whatever other amp) fails to pass a
straight-wire bypass test, as long as it satisfies the owner?
You're like a car mechanic who takes apart a carburettor because the
engine won't run, while the real cause is an empty fuel tank.
Pooh Bear
Sander deWaal wrote:
> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >Hiwever if we imagine that one amplifier is indeed 'perfect' then any other
> >that sounds different must be 'imperfect'. Simple logic shows that 2 perfect
> >amplifers must therefore be indistinguishable.
>
> Suppose a DBT between 2 amplifiers that were different in a sighted
> listening test.
> Suppose also that in the DBT, differences exist and are reliably
> detected.
>
> Which one of the 2 is the better amplifier?
> Wouldn't that depend on personal preference?
That's why I asked you define your understanding of 'better'.
If it were possible to capture exactly the 'sound field' at the reording
microphone and compare it to the recreated sound then clearly one would seek the
closest match. For a host of reasons it isn't technically possible to do this of
course.
Instead, every transducer, amplification stage or storage device in the chain
between source and listener is designed to be as technically accurate as possible
in order to preserve the signal integrity. By that measure then I would use the
'scientific test' to determine the 'better' device.
Note that if you choose to abandon this measure then the whole debate about
what's 'better' becomes a farce. Due to the interactions that can be created
between ( poorly designed ) different pieces of equipment, a device that's
'better' in one test may become 'worse' in another.
> Of course, when measurements show that one of the 2 has higher
> distortion of some kind, it would be worse in the sense of the known
> definition of HiFi.
Indeed.
> But as I already said earlier, my definition of HiFi isn't "an exact
> reproduction of what's on the disc" , but a reproduction of the real
> event.
That's *your* defintion and it's not one that that as I noted can be verified. In
any case there often is no 'real event' to reproduce. The moment that multiple
microphones are used there is no longer any point source for example and the
recording is a 'production' not a replica.
> Since I have never attended most real events that I have on CD or LP,
> I must rely on what sounds "good" to me.
>
> And there you have it.
> You may call that "MyFi", I don't care, as long as the result pleases
> and satisfies me.
You are at least being reasonably honest there. It does mean however that your
views on the subject involve clear bias. And of course the 'better' will
therefore vary from person to person. In fact it is indeed as you say, simply
'what I like'.
Some ppl for example might like a sound that's comparable to adding tomato
ketchup and brown sauce to your dinner when dining at a Michelin 5 star
restaurant ? Would you want that to be regarded as the reference yardstick though
?
What irks me are those who aren't as honest as yourself and seek to impose their
personal tastes that involve very large measurable and clearly audible defects
and then present the resulting mess as 'ultrafi' and 'better'.
It's technically, scientifically and intellectualy dishonest to do that.
> So far, it does with my tube and hybrid amplifiers, and it doesn't
> with most commercial +300 watt BJT monsters.
I wonder what you'd make of my 1200B.
Incidentally I have invariably found that audio gear that measures really well
usually sound really good. And equipment that measures badly has habit of souding
shit too. Equipment whose measurements suggest that it's coloured tend to sound -
wel err coloured too.
Just a last one.
Do you think a flat frequncy response is important ?
Graham
Pooh Bear
Ruud Broens wrote:
It also suggests that ppl who don't like the result of a scientific approach simply
choose to disregard the science and substitute opinion for fact.
This is pretty much what I had been expecting.
Graham
Ruud Broens
:
:
My perfessioneal adio designer next door uses 30 dB attenuting earplugs
when discussing politely with others.
I wouldn't expect him to make sense,
any day of the week
maharG
Andre Jute
Sander deWaal wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> >Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> >> A tube amp * must* do something different.
>
> >No. A tube amp must strive for what has always been its ideal, the open
> >window on the concert hall.
>
>
>
> Which isn't in contradiction with what you wrote below.
> My comment was aimed towards Graham's dead old beaten-to-pulp-horse
> that :
> "Surely the ultimate hi-fidelity amp simply shouldn't have a *sound* ?
> That's the whole point. The perfect tube amp should be audibly
> indistinguishable from the perfect SS amp."
>
Apologies, Sander. I performed two operations, removing the egregious
Poop and writing my text, either side of a distraction. I'll do better
next time.
> With the latter statement, I diagree.
Everyone in his right mind does. A silicon amp should, to be
acceptable, sound precisely like the tube amp which is most acceptable
to professional musicians.Those silicon amps which cannot manage that
must try harder.
> I have seldom heard a SS amp do what it is required to do, to open the
> window on the concert hall, on the place of my desire, with the
> orchestra of my choice, etc.
>
> My tube- and even hybrid amps do that so much better.
>
>
> HiFi is subjective.
> Mike McKelvy ("NYOB" in RAO)
I've run into Nyobe, Queen of Ignorance. I shall not be surprised at
what follows.
> says that HiFi is the exact reproduction
> of what is on the source disk.
Ugh. How very 1960's Electrical Engineering Faculty at Provincial Poly.
> My definition of HiFi is the closest approach to what I hear in the
> concert hall, the jazz venue or the rock concert.
> All of which are still not possible with whatever audio gear I've
> heard.
>
> Quads come close, though.
>
> My Maggies excel in reproducing natural sounding grand pianos, which
> happens to be my favourite instrument.
I have Andrash Schiff's box set of the Mozart piano concertos out right
now, about to put disc 7 in, concertos 22 and 23.
> Therefor, I forgive them their many other flaws.
Ha! I was wondering the other day if the bigger Quads would be an
improvement actually worth the money over my -63s. Then I remembered
Zip, who used to be on RAO or RAHE, who used to say that real
audiophiles proved their commitment by spending more money, so I
decided the -63 have served me well for almost a quarter-century and
can see me out.
Andre Jute
Ruud Broens
:
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
:
: > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
: > news:nIidnVgrC9e...@comcast.com...
: > :
: > : "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
: > : news:4399ca93$0$66850$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
: > : > Oh, yeah, like Pinkerton, you know this because you compared it to the
: > : > sound of the input signal,
: > :
: > : > LOL
: > :
: > : What's funny about that?
: >
: > because, at best, you compare the input signal amplified by another amp,
: > connected to the same speaker if you don't see a methodological problem
: > there,
: > then, well..
: > but don't claim it gives you anything truthful to say about the matter
:-)
: >
: > : What's wrong with stright-wire-bypass tests, except that a lot of tubed
amps
: > : fail them?
: >
: > hmm, by Arny-logic, i'd have to say: this proves the straight-wire-bypass
: > test is flawed.
:
: It also suggests that ppl who don't like the result of a scientific approach
simply
: choose to disregard the science and substitute opinion for fact.
:
: This is pretty much what I had been expecting.
:
:
: Graham
yes, it's a clear mark of your openmindedness, Graham :-)
btw, if you want to learn something about valid testing procedures
involving audio, google rao & my name, then let's hear from you again
(probably not:)
bye
Rudy
Sander deWaal
>> Which one of the 2 is the better amplifier?
>> Wouldn't that depend on personal preference?
>That's why I asked you define your understanding of 'better'.
I think Ive made that clear on several occasions now.
>You are at least being reasonably honest there. It does mean however that your
>views on the subject involve clear bias. And of course the 'better' will
>therefore vary from person to person. In fact it is indeed as you say, simply
>'what I like'.
And I've never said otherwise.
No, let's rephrase: I've never intended otherwise.
>> So far, it does with my tube and hybrid amplifiers, and it doesn't
>> with most commercial +300 watt BJT monsters.
>I wonder what you'd make of my 1200B.
Can you post a schematic somewhere, then I'll tell you whether I would
like its sound or not :-)))
>Do you think a flat frequncy response is important ?
That's a tough one.
Considering the abberations of my speakers, my room, and the
correlation between them, adding the behaviour of speaker/amplifier
interaction, I'd say: "no, it's not that important".
I once attended a demonstration where someone equalized his system to
flat on a certain listener position.
It sounded extremely dull and lifeless.
However, I'm open to the idea that he didn't do it quite well, or that
the source material was bad.
Andre Jute
culture, knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
than they do.
He then justifies this travesty by making large assumptions and
presumtions which were not in my original post, and reinforces this
prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.
Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
auditors as "very lilely" to be deaf.
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134144209.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
> > refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
> > people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
> > I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
> > an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
> > want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
> > some self-mimicking biological growth.
>
> That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
> imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale.
That's your opinion, Arny. It has no currency with those who actually
have professional performers available for such tests. If you have
proof, offer it. Othwise, blow.
> For
> openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
> likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds.
You have assumed my auditors are orchestral musicians. You have a
railroad mind, Arnie, that goes straight to the most obvious, lowest
common denominator, and squats on it despite all evidence that you are
in altogether the wrong place.
You have to prove that the hearing of even orchestral musicians is
impaired. Your unsupported opinions is merely a scandalous slander, a
slimy smear tactic.
>Even soloists,
> particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
> extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.
Another unproven claim.
Another unfounded presumption by this little man, Krueger. Nope, my
auditors aren't singers either. Keep guessing, Arny. Anyone who
seriously wanted to debate these matters would have asked which
musicians I used. Instead you storm in and start throwing accusations
based on absolutely nothing that I said.
> > In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.
>
> Probably due to a number of factors.
>
> (1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That they
> would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.
Absolute nonsense. How would they distinguish the sound of
"retro-technology" when all the amps on test are behind a curtain? You
do talk a lot of ridiculous crap, Arny.
> (2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for sure that
> they are biased against modern technology.
This sort of scummy mudslinging is beneath contempt. How could I bias a
test specifically designed to eradicate human bias?
This poor ignorant netwarrior Krueger should prove that I am against
modern technology; he's in for a whole row of very big surprises.
> (3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who must
> endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.
Arny has now progressed from a tentative lie ("are likely to be
hearing-damaged") to stating as a fact that "hearing problems that
[are] endemic among performers" which is an outright lie.
> (4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often very
> sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
> differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
> musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion, find a
> trained technical listener.
More tenth-rate engineer's gobbledegook: artificial problems. We
already know that ever-diminishing THD doesn't predict anything. All
you want to know from the musicians is which amp most closely
approximates what the music makers heard in the concert room as they
created the music. All this crap about "nonlinear distortion"
(barbarian tautological phrasing to make Arny sound "scientific" and
"professional") is a handful of dust in our eyes. When the best ears in
the business say that is the music they heard as they made it,
faithfully reproduced by the electronics, that is the amp we're
striving for. Arny and his kind are already surplus to requirements.
All this nastiness is their desperate rearguard action to protect their
importance.
What a transparent idiot this Arny Krueger is. How did such an
inadequate, ignorant jerk ever come to take control of RAO? Who
permitted this travesty?
Andre Jute
ScottW
Andre Jute wrote:
>
> What a transparent idiot this Arny Krueger is. How did such an
> inadequate, ignorant jerk ever come to take control of RAO? Who
> permitted this travesty?
That would be George. He did it.
ScottW
Andre Jute
Poop Bear aka Gatecrasher wrote:
Why don't you go start your own thread, Poop. I thought I made it clear
I don't want you contaminating mine.
Do you make a habit of forcing your way in where you are not wanted?
nyo...@peoplepc.com
Bret Ludwig
Arny Krueger wrote:
> That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
> imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
> openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
> likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even soloists,
> particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
> extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.
>
> > In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.
>
> Probably due to a number of factors.
>
> (1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That they
> would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.
>
> (2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for sure that
> they are biased against modern technology.
>
> (3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who must
> endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.
>
> (4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often very
> sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
> differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
> musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion, find a
> trained technical listener.
I don't agree.
Classical musicians of my acquaintence today almost always have crappy
stereos, partly from disinterest and partly from having colossal
instrument loans, especially string players, since ownership of an
instrument with prestiege is a career enhancer. The reason a Strad or
Amati costs what it does is because that's about a decade of what a
first chair violinist makes. Said Strad owning first violinist might be
a second violinist with a modern violin, not because of tone, but
orchestral prestiege-i.e. which band's studs have the biggest dick.
I also think a trained listener is a trained listener, period.
However, no one is really training listeners anymore! Violinists,
trombonists and steel guitarists are good at pitch discrimination, and
piano tuners are good at it as well...but only out of necessity. It's
as hard to train people to listen and communicate the results as it is
to teach them to play, and it pays even less.
Bret Ludwig
Pot calling kettle black noted.
Andre Jute
nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134162272.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Poop Bear aka Gatecrasher wrote:
Actually, everything Poopie wrote was snipped, and I wrote the next two
pars, not Poopie.
> > Why don't you go start your own thread, Poop. I thought I made it clear
> > I don't want you contaminating mine.
> >
> > Do you make a habit of forcing your way in where you are not wanted?
> >
> That seems to be your M.O..
Nyobe, my Queen of Ignorance, welcome on my patch. Please do not feed
Poopie Bear; he is my rat and he is in training in my online lab. You
see, you got it almost right when you wrote:
"Mr. Jute is jerking the collective chains of anybody who allows him
to do so, as some sort of passtime or excercise for his private
amusement".
A few corrections are in order. My subjects volunteer, after they are
warned, right out in public, that some of their predecessors didn't
make it, and that the survivors will have nervous twitches for the rest
of their lives. Poopie was warned. You can check out this last week on
RAT where I repeatedly told Poopie to bugger off and save his worthless
ass, or failing that to look up the instructive history of the
Magnequest Scum. Poopie, a right wilful little rolypoly idiot, utterly
reckless, a darwinian accident waiting to happen, despite these
warnings volunteered to be a rat in my laboratory. (A rat in my
laboratory is a psych subject who volunteered by throwing himself
against my ankles after I asked him not to do so, a RAT, capitals, is a
tube afficionado, quite safe from me.) Second, you got the motivation
wrong. I do it for research and for a buck, rather than merely because
I can. It is pleasing too when netizens congratulate me on turning a
vicious netbully like Pinkerton into a twitching redeye rodent with a
bad haircut who jumps when I cough.
> That seems to be your M.O..
I don't know where Poopie gatecrashed before but it wouldn't surprise
me that he did. First I ever heard of Graham Poop Bear was when he
landed on RAT and immediately started abusing me.
As I said, please do not feed Poopie Bear; he is my rat.
Voldemort
E&OE
What? Me worry? -- Alfred E. Neumann, greatest philosopher who ever
lived.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
>
> nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134162272.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Poop Bear aka Gatecrasher wrote:
>
> Actually, everything Poopie wrote was snipped, and I wrote the next two
> pars, not Poopie.
>
>> > Why don't you go start your own thread, Poop. I thought I made it clear
>> > I don't want you contaminating mine.
>> >
>> > Do you make a habit of forcing your way in where you are not wanted?
>> >
>> That seems to be your M.O..
>
> Nyobe, my Queen of Ignorance, welcome on my patch.
Please do not feed
> Poopie Bear; he is my rat and he is in training in my online lab.
Riiiiiiiggghhht. You're a legend in your own mind.
If only your abilities were as large as your ego.
You
> see, you got it almost right when you wrote:
>
> "Mr. Jute is jerking the collective chains of anybody who allows him
> to do so, as some sort of passtime or excercise for his private
> amusement".
>
> A few corrections are in order. My subjects volunteer, after they are
> warned, right out in public, that some of their predecessors didn't
> make it, and that the survivors will have nervous twitches for the rest
> of their lives. Poopie was warned.
I don't think he needed any warning, he picked up on your "abilities" right
away.
>> That seems to be your M.O..
>
> I don't know where Poopie gatecrashed before but it wouldn't surprise
> me that he did. First I ever heard of Graham Poop Bear was when he
> landed on RAT and immediately started abusing me.
>
<snip of typical nonsense.
> Voldemort
> E&OE
> What? Me worry? -- Alfred E. Neumann, greatest philosopher who ever
> lived.
>
Not surpriseing yo would think so.
Arny Krueger
> Incredible. Arny Krueger, an auto mechanic not widely renowned for his
> culture,
Incredible, a sockpuppet posting under the name Andre Jute, pretends that
he's qualified to sit in judgement of me. Mr. Sockpuppet is obviously
incompetent to judge me, because he has my occupational information
completely wrong.
> knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
> than they do.
A musician can only directly know what he sounds like from his perspective.
> He then justifies this travesty
No travesty, it's simple logic.
> by making large assumptions and
> presumtions which were not in my original post,
I think you're making this part up for effect, Jute. Specify it or lose the
point.
>and reinforces this
>prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.
My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute. Admit it, I
attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.
>Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
auditors as very liely" to be deaf.
Nothing slimey, just the facts.
Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
points. Therefore they stand.
Arny Krueger
>
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:nIidnVgrC9e...@comcast.com...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> : news:4399ca93$0$66850$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> : > Oh, yeah, like Pinkerton, you know this because you compared it to the
> : > sound of the input signal,
> :
> : > LOL
> :
> : What's funny about that?
>
> because, at best, you compare the input signal amplified by another amp,
> connected to the same speaker.
Wrong.
> if you don't see a methodological problem there, then, well..
Your ignorance of the procedures I use is fatal to your argument, Rudy. They
are in the RAO archives. Ignorance is no defense. You lose!
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> said:
>
>>What's wrong with stright-wire-bypass tests, except that a lot of tubed
>>amps
>>fail them?
> I'm beginning to believe your biggest problem is your lack of
> imagination, you simply can't think outside of your box.
This is proof that you're trying to win a logical argument by means of
personal attack, Sander.
> So what if a tube amp (or whatever other amp) fails to pass a
> straight-wire bypass test, as long as it satisfies the owner?
One major problem with that is the fact that the feelings of satisfaction
have zero generality.
> You're like a car mechanic who takes apart a carburettor because the
> engine won't run, while the real cause is an empty fuel tank.
Non sequitor childish personal attack.
Your'e been hanging out with Jute too much Sander - you're beginnging to
write in the circular, irrelevant childish way that he does.
Arny Krueger
"Bret Ludwig" <bret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134172423....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I don't agree.
Let everybody who is surprised, raise their hand! ;-)
> Classical musicians of my acquaintence today almost always have crappy
> stereos, partly from disinterest and partly from having colossal
> instrument loans, especially string players, since ownership of an
> instrument with prestiege is a career enhancer. The reason a Strad or
> Amati costs what it does is because that's about a decade of what a
> first chair violinist makes. Said Strad owning first violinist might be
> a second violinist with a modern violin, not because of tone, but
> orchestral prestiege-i.e. which band's studs have the biggest dick.
IOW, modern musicians are gear sluts, just like a lot of audiophiles and
recordists.
> I also think a trained listener is a trained listener, period.
That would be due to your inexperience with objectively evaluating the
performance of varied groups of people as listeners for technical
differences, no doubt.
> However, no one is really training listeners anymore!
Please don't impose your lack of productivity in this area with everybody.
> Violinists,
> trombonists and steel guitarists are good at pitch discrimination, and
> piano tuners are good at it as well...but only out of necessity. It's
> as hard to train people to listen and communicate the results as it is
> to teach them to play, and it pays even less.
Being able to reliably hear small difference related to technology can be
personally rewarding.
Pooh Bear
Bret Ludwig wrote:
Actually Mr Joot snipped so much that the entirety of that post you're
comenting on came from his *own posts* exclusively.
Graham
Pooh Bear
Andre Jute wrote:
> nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> > "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1134162272.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Poop Bear aka Gatecrasher wrote:
>
> Actually, everything Poopie wrote was snipped, and I wrote the next two
> pars, not Poopie.
>
> > > Why don't you go start your own thread, Poop. I thought I made it clear
> > > I don't want you contaminating mine.
> > >
> > > Do you make a habit of forcing your way in where you are not wanted?
> > >
> > That seems to be your M.O..
>
> Nyobe, my Queen of Ignorance, welcome on my patch. Please do not feed
> Poopie Bear; he is my rat and he is in training in my online lab. You
> see, you got it almost right when you wrote:
>
> "Mr. Jute is jerking the collective chains of anybody who allows him
> to do so, as some sort of passtime or excercise for his private
> amusement".
Uhuh.
I'm just waiting for the time when you announce that your idiotic low-fi SET
designs were just an elaborate joke you used to hoax everyone.
Graham
Arny Krueger
> I'm just waiting for the time when you announce that your idiotic low-fi
> SET
> designs were just an elaborate joke you used to hoax everyone.
Can we all say "troll"? ;-)
Andre Jute
observation about me will become a selffulfilling prophecy about how
easy it is to jerk the chain of the mindless churners one finds on the
more populous newsgroups. (1) I see more posts from you that I don't
have time to read but whose content I can guess at. Are you perchance
volunteering to be a rat in my laboratory, dear Nyobe? That would a
most generous of you.
nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134178694.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
> >> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1134162272.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Poop Bear aka Gatecrasher wrote:
> >
> > Actually, everything Poopie wrote was snipped, and I wrote the next two
> > pars, not Poopie.
> >
> >> > Why don't you go start your own thread, Poop. I thought I made it clear
> >> > I don't want you contaminating mine.
> >> >
> >> > Do you make a habit of forcing your way in where you are not wanted?
> >> >
> >> That seems to be your M.O..
> >
> > Nyobe, my Queen of Ignorance, welcome on my patch.
> You don't have a patch, you great stupid git. This is a public forum.
Why, so it is. But we have a few ways of weeding the undergrowth of
undesirables. Stick around and experience them.
> Please do not feed
> > Poopie Bear; he is my rat and he is in training in my online lab.
>
> Riiiiiiiggghhht. You're a legend in your own mind.
You're not one of those idiots who hold it against someone that he was
born gifted, beautiful and possessed of serendipity, are you Nyobe?
> If only your abilities were as large as your ego.
Some might shudder, but I promise to be a benevolent dictator.
> You
> > see, you got it almost right when you wrote:
> >
> > "Mr. Jute is jerking the collective chains of anybody who allows him
> > to do so, as some sort of passtime or excercise for his private
> > amusement".
Would you like to retract the only smart thing you said in the week
I've known you, albeit hardly original? (Ron Bales said it first as
long ago as 1996.)
Or perhaps you would like a ride on the treadmill-- I mean on the big
wheel in this nice playground.
> > A few corrections are in order. My subjects volunteer, after they are
> > warned, right out in public, that some of their predecessors didn't
> > make it, and that the survivors will have nervous twitches for the rest
> > of their lives. Poopie was warned.
>
> I don't think he needed any warning, he picked up on your "abilities" right
> away.
You just made me 850 bucks. I bet that you would sneer and jeer.
Thanks. Remember, you volunteered.
> >> That seems to be your M.O..
> >
> > I don't know where Poopie gatecrashed before but it wouldn't surprise
> > me that he did. First I ever heard of Graham Poop Bear was when he
> > landed on RAT and immediately started abusing me.
> >
> <snip of typical nonsense.
Huh? Nothing was snipped. Are you losing contact with reality, sweet
Nyobe? Are you feeling a little woozy, McKelvey. Wakey, wakey,
McKelvey.
> > Voldemort
> > E&OE
> > What? Me worry? -- Alfred E. Neumann, greatest philosopher who ever
> > lived.
> >
> Not surpriseing yo would think so.
You're becoming unreasonably enraged, Nyobe of mine, Queen Consort of
His Maximum Ignoramus Pinkothicko. Keep your cool. It is only business,
nothing personal. You're just clutter to be cleared away or put to good
use, composted if possible.
Let me take you on a nice calming tour of my online motivational lab.
AJ
(1) There are some advantages to being a small newsgroup. Almost
everyone is knowledgeable about something and we don't have too many
brownnosing oxygen-wasters like McKelvey, Queen of Ignorance, who wants
to be known as Nyobe for some obscure reason I hesitate to enquire into
for fear of encouraging immorality.
Arny Krueger
> Now, now, Nyobe Queen of Ignorance, don't lose your rag or your
> observation about me will become a selffulfilling prophecy about how
> easy it is to jerk the chain of the mindless churners one finds on the
> more populous newsgroups. (1) I see more posts from you that I don't
> have time to read but whose content I can guess at. Are you perchance
> volunteering to be a rat in my laboratory, dear Nyobe? That would a
> most generous of you.
Childish namecalling 101. It must really suck being Andre Jute.
Andre Jute
Andre Jute wrote:
> Incredible. Arny Krueger, an auto mechanic not widely renowned for his
> culture, knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
> than they do.
>
> He then justifies this travesty by making large assumptions and
> presumtions which were not in my original post, and reinforces this
> prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.
>
> Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
> auditors as "very lilely" to be deaf.
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
To which reasoned argument, above, Mr Krueger's entire answer consist
of these childish rhetorical tricks that would be transparent, and
contemptible, to any average six-year old:
And that's it. Krueger has cut all my reasoned argument and simply lies
that I didn't make any. But from the top down you just read a
devastating reply to all his points. But Arny claims I never made all
those points. He just cut them right out...
Perhaps Arny was drunk when he wrote the above, perhaps he was
suffering some kind of a fit, perhaps he is just senile. But he never
in his life gave anyone else a break, so let his chickens come home to
roost:
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1134158185.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Incredible. Arny Krueger, an auto mechanic not widely renowned for his
> > culture,
>
> Incredible, a sockpuppet posting under the name Andre Jute, pretends that
> he's qualified to sit in judgement of me. Mr. Sockpuppet is obviously
> incompetent to judge me, because he has my occupational information
> completely wrong.
If you say it is 12.35:15 and Arnie's watch reads 15 seconds faster,
you've lost the war. Those are Arny's Rules. We're discussing large
cultural matters, and this little railroad mind 'engineer' thinks it is
valid currency to nitpick literary flourishes, to insist on dullest
engineering literalmindedness. How petty can you get?
> > knows better what the musicians who recorded the discs hear
> > than they do.
>
> A musician can only directly know what he sounds like from his perspective.
Unfortunately, Arny, you still haven't had the sense to ask me which
musicians I chose. I left their description out of the original
precisely as a trap to demonstrate your vacuity and your tendency to
presumption, assumption and jumping to entirely unwarranted
conclusions, and to build lies upon lies, in short your daily betrayal
of the scientific method. You dived face-first into the pit I staked
for you, exposing your cloven hoof and every single one of your
malicious weaknesses.
I chose the musicians precisely so that they could hear each other in
the performance.
What is more, you, Arny, can only hear the music from your perspective.
Furthermore, the THD figures you want to substitute for cultural
judgement measures only from the perspective of engineers and has
clearly is long past the point of having anything to do with culture.
> > He then justifies this travesty
>
> No travesty, it's simple logic.
You have made a series of bald claims without proof. You have
demonstrated no logic whatsoever. I shall shortly prove that your lies,
your misrepresentations and your smears separately and together make
travesty of a serious subject.
> > by making large assumptions and
> > presumtions which were not in my original post,
>
> I think you're making this part up for effect, Jute. Specify it or lose the
> point.
I have already demonstrated that you don't know which musicians I
chose. You made "large assumptions and presumptions which were not in
my original post" and on them built a farrago of nonsense and lies, and
in this reply to me snipped off a;; my reasoned counterargument to
these lies of yours because you don't have a foot to stand on. You're a
graceless loser, Krueger, and dishonest slime for these debating
methods.
> >and reinforces this
> >prejudice and straight wistful thinking without any proof offered.
> My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute. Admit it, I
> attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.
Are they? And did you? Two extremely doubtful statements. We'll discuss
them in a minute.
But first we should note that this is another of Arny's kindergarten
polemics dolly kit tricks. What little Arny stands accused of is
reinforcing his lies with prejudice and wishful thinking about the
hearing of professional classical peformers without any proof offered.
Arny knows I'm going to nail him on the proof (indeed, I have already
nailed him on the proof, which is why he snipped away my argument), so
now he tries to distract us with this bullshit about Arny Krueger being
as good as the next man. That's a lie, too.
> My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute.
No, they are not. You are right to be defensive about your lack of
relevant experience. I have spent 45 years reviewing music in all the
great halls and opera houses. For years I went to concerts five night a
week. I have worked with a symphony orchestra to prepare the premiere
of my symphony. I am a psychologist who tested the ears of many
musicians. When I want to record music, I don't go to my little church
and ask humbly if I can record the choir with my little tape recorder,
as you do. I go to a recording studio which I once owned and I tell
the engineers to prepare the suite for me in which I once joked with
Miriam Makeba and Frank Sinatra.
>Admit it, I
> attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.
What?! You stacked up some dull, transparent lies about performers, who
may or may not be the performers specified, suffering "endemic" hearing
loss, a lie so clumsy it is an offense to the intelligence of even the
idiots who travel on your coattails for the bovvers. And now you want
my approval for these dumb, dumb, stupid, offensive kiddie-corner
tricks? You *are* senile, Krueger.
> >Of course, in his usual slimy style, Arny also immediately impugns my
> auditors as very liely" to be deaf.
>
> Nothing slimey, just the facts.
Well then, provide the proof that hearing loss is "endemic" among the
musicians I used. You can't provide that proof because you don't know
which musicians they are. But you pontificate as if you're expert about
a group you cannot even identify.
You are a fraud, Arny Krueger.
> Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
> points. Therefore they stand.
Bottom line: you didn't make any critical points. Instead you told a
bunch of lies. Then you cut away all my analysis of your lies and claim
you won. Nope. Here is my devastating refutation of your lies and
deceits with additional commentary:
Andre Jute wrote:
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1134144209.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced and
> > > refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
> > > people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the music
> > > I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more like
> > > an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
> > > want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors or
> > > some self-mimicking biological growth.
> >
> > That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
> > imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale.
>
> That's your opinion, Arny. It has no currency with those who actually
> have professional performers available for such tests. If you have
> proof, offer it. Othwise, blow.
In short, prove it, you deceitful little man. That refutation that you
didn't want your hangers-on to see already kills the rest of your
meretricious argument stone dead but there's more to come:
> > For
> > openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
> > likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds.
>
> You have assumed my auditors are orchestral musicians. You have a
> railroad mind, Arnie, that goes straight to the most obvious, lowest
> common denominator, and squats on it despite all evidence that you are
> in altogether the wrong place.
>
> You have to prove that the hearing of even orchestral musicians is
> impaired. Your unsupported opinions is merely a scandalous slander, a
> slimy smear tactic.
Again, I didn't tell you which musicians I used. But you blunder in and
tell a lie about the musicians you assume I used. You then follow that
up with a lie about another group of musicians, just in case I used
them. We note that above, where you had the chance to offer proof, you
offered none, and instead tried to hide the fact that I demanded proof.
> >Even soloists,
> > particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
> > extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.
>
> Another unproven claim.
>
> Another unfounded presumption by this little man, Krueger. Nope, my
> auditors aren't singers either. Keep guessing, Arny. Anyone who
> seriously wanted to debate these matters would have asked which
> musicians I used. Instead you storm in and start throwing accusations
> based on absolutely nothing that I said.
Let's see what Arny says about this, after snipping away the part above
so you cannot immediately juxtapose the truth and his deceit. First
quotes me:
> > by making large assumptions and
> > presumtions which were not in my original post,
Then he demands:
> I think you're making this part up for effect, Jute. Specify it or lose the
> point.
I already answered that, repeatedly, and Arny snipped my reply. So, is
Arny a functional illiterate who didn't understand that I was referring
to his assumption about which musicians I used, and his wishful
thinking (absolutely evil this) that they should go deaf. Or is Arny
merely being deceitful again by removing my argument and then claiming
I didn't make it? Whatever, Arny deceitfully snipped the specification
I already made.
> > > In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.
> >
> > Probably due to a number of factors.
> >
> > (1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That they
> > would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.
>
> Absolute nonsense. How would they distinguish the sound of
> "retro-technology" when all the amps on test are behind a curtain? You
> do talk a lot of ridiculous crap, Arny.
Note that Arny doesn't try to explain how his ridiculous claim can be
justified. He merely snips my scathing comment and my demand for
justification.
> > (2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for sure that
> > they are biased against modern technology.
>
> This sort of scummy mudslinging is beneath contempt. How could I bias a
> test specifically designed to eradicate human bias?
Note that Arny doesn't even attempt an answer. He merely snips my
scathing remark about his smear tactics. He refuses to answer the
question about ABX tests. Arny Krueger knows I know more about placebo
tests (what he pretentiously calls ABX) than he ever will. Yet Krueger
ponces around on RAO as the self-declared great ABX expert. Now he
makes a smear that makes all his claims of ABX expertise into a lie.
It's another foolish, foolish lie, because surely he must have known
that I, and others, would see through it immediately.
> This poor ignorant netwarrior Krueger should prove that I am against
> modern technology; he's in for a whole row of very big surprises.
Note that Arny doesn't even attempt proof. He knows his statement is a
lie and that if he attempts to prove it, I will wipe my lavatory with
him.
> > (3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who must
> > endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.
> Arny has now progressed from a tentative lie ("are likely to be
> hearing-damaged") to stating as a fact that "hearing problems that
> [are] endemic among performers" which is an outright lie.
Arny Krueger, a slimy, deceitful, habitual liar, didn't even attempt to
prove this outrageous lie, and slander on musicians. He just snipped
the entire section where I pointed out that he lies and lies and lies.
> > (4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often very
> > sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
> > differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
> > musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion, find a
> > trained technical listener.
>
> More tenth-rate engineer's gobbledegook: artificial problems.
With artificial emphasis. We don't *know* any such thing, Arny, and I
suspect you know it, hence the attempt to distract by artificial
insistence.
>We
> already know that ever-diminishing THD doesn't predict anything. All
> you want to know from the musicians is which amp most closely
> approximates what the music makers heard in the concert room as they
> created the music. All this crap about "nonlinear distortion"
> (barbarian tautological phrasing to make Arny sound "scientific" and
> "professional") is a handful of dust in our eyes. When the best ears in
> the business say that is the music they heard as they made it,
> faithfully reproduced by the electronics, that is the amp we're
> striving for. Arny and his kind are already surplus to requirements.
> All this nastiness is their desperate rearguard action to protect their
> importance.
>
> What a transparent idiot this Arny Krueger is. How did such an
> inadequate, ignorant jerk ever come to take control of RAO? Who
> permitted this travesty?
>
> Andre Jute
And of course Arny doesn't want his claque of travelling bullyboys to
see my logical, reasoned, well-founded conclusion, so he just snips
everthing away, doesn't offer proof of his outrageous claims, just
insists ludicrously that he won the argument. Perhaps he thought that
by now his gang of travelling bullyboys (Packer, McKelvey, Pinkerton,
etc) would have softened me up so much that I would shut up. (How
stupid can even these netidiots get?)
Arny Krueger is a despicable liar and a fool and if he knows shit about
music, recording or audio, I have failed to discover the smallest
nugget of knowledge in him.
Andre Jute
nyo...@peoplepc.com
>> Please do not feed
>> > Poopie Bear; he is my rat and he is in training in my online lab.
>>
>> Riiiiiiiggghhht. You're a legend in your own mind.
>
> You're not one of those idiots who hold it against someone that he was
> born gifted, beautiful and possessed of serendipity, are you Nyobe?
>
And hate myself? Never. It's just something I've grown up with.
Oh wait, did you mean you?
>> If only your abilities were as large as your ego.
>
> Some might shudder, but I promise to be a benevolent dictator.
>
An oxymoron.
>> You
>> > see, you got it almost right when you wrote:
>> >
>> > "Mr. Jute is jerking the collective chains of anybody who allows him
>> > to do so, as some sort of passtime or excercise for his private
>> > amusement".
>
> Would you like to retract the only smart thing you said in the week
> I've known you, albeit hardly original? (Ron Bales said it first as
> long ago as 1996.)
>
> Or perhaps you would like a ride on the treadmill-- I mean on the big
> wheel in this nice playground.
>
>> > A few corrections are in order. My subjects volunteer, after they are
>> > warned, right out in public, that some of their predecessors didn't
>> > make it, and that the survivors will have nervous twitches for the rest
>> > of their lives. Poopie was warned.
>>
>> I don't think he needed any warning, he picked up on your "abilities"
>> right
>> away.
>
> You just made me 850 bucks. I bet that you would sneer and jeer.
> Thanks. Remember, you volunteered.
>
>> >> That seems to be your M.O..
>> >
>> > I don't know where Poopie gatecrashed before but it wouldn't surprise
>> > me that he did. First I ever heard of Graham Poop Bear was when he
>> > landed on RAT and immediately started abusing me.
>> >
You invite it. Especially from people who actually know something.
>> <snip of typical nonsense.
>
> Huh? Nothing was snipped. Are you losing contact with reality, sweet
> Nyobe? Are you feeling a little woozy, McKelvey. Wakey, wakey,
> McKelvey.
>
>> > Voldemort
>> > E&OE
>> > What? Me worry? -- Alfred E. Neumann, greatest philosopher who ever
>> > lived.
>> >
>> Not surpriseing yo would think so.
>
> You're becoming unreasonably enraged, Nyobe of mine, Queen Consort of
> His Maximum Ignoramus Pinkothicko. Keep your cool. It is only business,
> nothing personal. You're just clutter to be cleared away or put to good
> use, composted if possible.
>
More of that projecting that Stweart was talking about.
> Let me take you on a nice calming tour of my online motivational lab.
>
> AJ
>
> (1) There are some advantages to being a small newsgroup.
Where you thought maybe you would be the one-eyed man who would be king no
doubt.
You lost that bet.
Almost
> everyone is knowledgeable about something and we don't have too many
> brownnosing oxygen-wasters like McKelvey, Queen of Ignorance, who wants
> to be known as Nyobe for some obscure reason I hesitate to enquire into
> for fear of encouraging immorality.
>
Inquire about what? You just made everything up.
Youseem to do that a lot. Kinda like the KISS amp that never was.
You needn't worry about my staying long, I just wanted to see how the people
here reacted to you. I was on the money, it's a love hate relationship. The
people here that have known of you for more than 15 minutes love to hate
you.
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"Sander deWaal" <nos...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:c1ljp1ds00fn919op...@4ax.com...
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> said:
>
>>What's wrong with stright-wire-bypass tests, except that a lot of tubed
>>amps
>>fail them?
>
>
> I'm beginning to believe your biggest problem is your lack of
> imagination, you simply can't think outside of your box.
>
> straight-wire bypass test, as long as it satisfies the owner?
>
> You're like a car mechanic who takes apart a carburettor because the
> engine won't run, while the real cause is an empty fuel tank.
>
Nah, more like somebody trying to figure out why somebody wants to know why
you want a carburettor when fuel injection is so much better.
Ruud Broens
:
: "Ruud Broens" <bro...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
Well, after all the flak you've had to take recently, i'll let you have this
moment of ego restoration, Arn :-)
until we meet,
again,
Rudy
Sander deWaal
>Your'e been hanging out with Jute too much Sander - you're beginnging to
>write in the circular, irrelevant childish way that he does.
Maybe he's my sockpuppet master. ;-)
Sander deWaal
>> So what if a tube amp (or whatever other amp) fails to pass a
>> straight-wire bypass test, as long as it satisfies the owner?
>Nothing so long as the owner isn't expecting accuracy.
When judged by your (and, granted, most people in the pro audio world)
definition of accuracy, yes.
I'm talking of a different kind of high fidelity, the definition of
which which should be clear to anyone by now.
And that's why, IMHO, tube audio should be the domain of the DIY-er
exclusively.
Then, and only then, he will be capable of adjsuting the system's
sound (which includes the amp's sound) to his liking.
(Note: following this route,the same goes for solid state gear).
Iain Churches
> I also know what the amp sounds like playing recordings I made, in my
> listening room and with my associated equipment.
>
I too know what amplifiers sound like playing a recording that you have
made. I would never submit any amplifier of mine to such humiliation
again:-)
Iain
Sander deWaal
>I'm talking of a different kind of high fidelity, the definition of
>which which should be clear to anyone by now.
Which witch is which, I wish?
One which too much, note.
EddieM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute. Admit it, I
> attacked this situation from an angle that you never thought of.
Here's another Cream Puff, Lover of ABX black box. Just another
wimpy, wussy, and a sad sack tuck-tailed sisssssy little yellow belly.
How much longer are ya gonna hide those tail? Gettda fuck off
this thread.
Any problem?
Do we have a problem with this?
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
<snip personal attacks>
>> Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
>> points. Therefore they stand.
<snip empty rhetoric>
EddieM
> Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
****
> <snip personal attacks>
>
>>> Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada) critical
>>> points. Therefore they stand.
>
> <snip empty rhetoric>
*****
Andre Jute had some legitimate concern he pose to the post prior
to the above. It should be addressed. It's a somewhat lengthy post
(about 458 lines) but towards the second half, he particularly ask:
"... Krueger has cut all my reasoned argument and simply lies
that I didn't make any. But from the top down you just read a
devastating reply to all his points. But Arny claims I never made all
those points. He just cut them right out... "
[ I must believe there were many more...]
> My personal experiences are just as valid as yours, Jute.
" No, they are not. You are right to be defensive about your lack of
relevant experience. I have spent 45 years reviewing music in all the
great halls and opera houses. [...] "
fiu...@yahoo.com
Arny Krueger, a superannuated mechanic, pretends to be a sound
recording engineer and general all-purpose audio expert. The above is
his entire answer to a serious suggestion about improving amplfiers
(and sources) -- after he has been given two chances to make a serious
argument and provide proof of patently erroneous claims. It leads me to
conclude that Krueger has neither the knowledge nor the experience nor
the brains, and certainly not the necessary verbal skills, seriously to
discuss audio. Below my signature are the short versions of the facts
(and demands for proof of his dumb counterarguments) that Krueger tries
to escape. Or, if you have the patience and taste (and ability for
sophisticated argument that Krueger clearly lacks) here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/009f37729ce5c847/b67b0a3368af699d?hl=en#b67b0a3368af699d
you can find a longer, annotated version of Krueger's first attempt to
escape judgement for his lies.
Run, rabbit, run. You won't get far, little Arny
Andre Jute
Knowledgeable, articulate, relentless
THE FACTS AND DEMAND FOR PROOF KRUEGER IS TRYING TO EVADE WITH CHILDISH
RHETORICAL TRICKS:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> <nyo...@peoplepc.com> said:
>
>>> So what if a tube amp (or whatever other amp) fails to pass a
>>> straight-wire bypass test, as long as it satisfies the owner?
>
>>Nothing so long as the owner isn't expecting accuracy.
>
>
> When judged by your (and, granted, most people in the pro audio world)
> definition of accuracy, yes.
>
inaudible distortion.
> I'm talking of a different kind of high fidelity, the definition of
> which which should be clear to anyone by now.
>
Yes, with euphonic distortion.
> And that's why, IMHO, tube audio should be the domain of the DIY-er
> exclusively.
It pretty much is, not many other people want it.
> Then, and only then, he will be capable of adjsuting the system's
> sound (which includes the amp's sound) to his liking.
>
Nobody that likes an prefers SS accuracy cares that some other people like
tubes, it's the sometime arrogance that seems to follow. Tube audio is fine
as a hobby and that should be the end of it. But when some of it's devotees
want to claim that it is ultralinear, especially in an SET configuration,
they invite ridicule. Not that there aren't some very arrogant golden ear
types in the SS ranks, they just happen to be talking about better quality
stuff.
>
Iain Churches
>
> That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
> openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
> soloists, particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged
> by the extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.
>
Interesting points, Arny. In my experience the situation is the exact
reverse of what you claim it to be. I work with professional classical
musicians on a daily basis. I am often impressed by their levels of
audio perception.
Iain
Arny Krueger
Good job of not standing behind your critcal claim, Rudy. :-(
Arny Krueger
"Iain Churches" <taelN...@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:dnhbdm$dnr$1...@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi...
Well Iain, aren't you also impressed by tubed amps?
Figures. :-(
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>>Sander deWaal wrote:
>
>>> A tube amp * must* do something different.
>
>>No. A tube amp must strive for what has always been its ideal, the open
>>window on the concert hall.
>
>
>
> Which isn't in contradiction with what you wrote below.
> My comment was aimed towards Graham's dead old beaten-to-pulp-horse
> that :
> "Surely the ultimate hi-fidelity amp simply shouldn't have a *sound* ?
> That's the whole point. The perfect tube amp should be audibly
> indistinguishable from the perfect SS amp."
>
> With the latter statement, I diagree.
> I have seldom heard a SS amp do what it is required to do, to open the
> window on the concert hall, on the place of my desire, with the
> orchestra of my choice, etc.
>
> My tube- and even hybrid amps do that so much better.
>
>
> HiFi is subjective.
> Mike McKelvy ("NYOB" in RAO) says that HiFi is the exact reproduction
> of what is on the source disk.
> My definition of HiFi is the closest approach to what I hear in the
> concert hall, the jazz venue or the rock concert.
Only if that's what was recorded and where. If the recording is in some
other venue then making sound like it was someplace else is distortion.
> All of which are still not possible with whatever audio gear I've
> heard.
>
> Quads come close, though.
>
> My Maggies excel in reproducing natural sounding grand pianos, which
> happens to be my favourite instrument.
> Therefor, I forgive them their many other flaws.
>
>
>
Loudspeakers are what really define what consitutes hi-fi, since they inject
the most distortion.
Amps that pass the straightwire bypas test no matter what toplogy are fine
so long as they send a signal to a pair of speakers that are capable of
doing that as well. The problem is that there aren't many speakers that can
do that and the ones that can, tend to be expensive and usually conisist of
multiple driver arrays to reduce distortion.
If I had 80 grand to spend on speakers, and a suitable room to put them in,
I'd buy the big Dynaudio speakers, since they produce the flattest response
I've ever seen. A newcomer that might be more realistic for more people is
the NHT system that runs about 6 thousand US and would be more appropriate
for a room such as mine. Amplifers and other gear are the least problem for
accurate playback. If you don't want accurate playback then I don't
understand why anybody cares about measurements or any of the rest of it,
since you're basically buying equalizers and signal processors masquerading
as amps. YMMV.
>
> "Andre Jute" <fiu...@yahoo.com> said:
>
snipped to keep things real.