82.1.230.24
This Post Has Been Edited by the Author
In Reply to: RE: Dennis, you never answered the question. posted by rage on July 06, 2017 at 06:04:21
"I think you all are a bit harsh on Dennis. I think he gets a lot shit because of Jeff.I know the non technical marketing statements makes some peoples blood boil but everyone can do better in being respectful... "
Personally, I have no problem at all with his, or anyone's, claims about the musicality, or what have you, of their amplifiers. I do not doubt that they can sound very good. My own suspicion is that the reasons why they may sound distinctive and satisfying are rather straightforwardly correlated with easily measurable colourations (or, one may say, distortions) that they introduce. But that in no way detracts from their being very satisfactory for the purpose of providing a satisfactory and pleasing musical reproduction.
I do take issue, though, when someone makes a claim of an explicitly technical nature, if that claim is in fact false. One example that falls into this category is the recent assertion that in a standard unbalanced output ("live" plus ground) signal, part of the music is in common mode. Another is the example Tre mentioned, of the claim that the output tube in an SET was passing "hundreds of amps." These assertions are simply wrong, and as such, I think if anyone makes such statements and asserts that they are true then it is legitimate for others to jump in and point out the error.
Chris
Edits: 07/07/17Follow Ups: