|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.106.240.93
In Reply to: Analog Scott posted by thetubeguy1954 on April 2, 2007 at 08:16:42:
No wonder why you don't discuss reasonably: reasoned discussion might lead to a modification of your opinions.And here's another lesson in logic: you are drawing a generalisation from extremely limited evidence. I simply took another look at something YOU said and reevaluated it, in this instance, because of something KlausR said. He has had virtually no role in the formation of my basic opinions about audio, opinions which you seem constitutionally unable to grasp. You don't seem to be able to grasp suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data:
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." ------Sherlock Holmes in a Scandal in Bohemia.
http://www.bcpl.net/~lmoskowi/HolmesQuotes/q.detection.html
Meanwhile, to get back to audio matters, you still have failed to specify just what measurements you are talking about but worry about vague generalities.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Follow Ups:
Pat D-Cake,The reason I CANNOT discuss reasonably with the likes of you is you have no opinions of your own SQQWWWAAACCCCK! You simply have nothing of value to add that could possibly lead to a modification of my opinions. You seem to forget that I speak with intelligent, rational objectivists like Roger Russell & Tom Danley. Next to them you pale in comparison and sadly enough are revealed to be a person who simply wishes to muddy the waters and be correct at all costs. You don't want to talk/debate/argue to discover whatever truths there are to be discovered. You want to make converts, to your misguided POV. I'll grant you try to give an apperance of an intelligent rebuttle, and occasionally you almost succeed, but sadly your bitterness always causes you to stumble.
==================================================================
As I read your posts I see you vain attempts to obfuscate what the real topic is, so you can hijack this thread into another Pat D-Cake is always right thread. You mistakenly claim that I'm drawing a generalisation from extremely limited evidence. Perhaps if you let your bitterness, obsession with me and being correct at all costs go you'd realize you're wrong yet once again. I've looked at 100's if not 1000's of specs, which brought me to the conclusion that everyone except a few lunatic-fringe objectivists disagree with. Todays accepted audio measurements that are typically used to define a specific components performance in no way correlates with which component will sound the most realistic. Hence they don't correlate with what we hear! Sorry but that's the sad truth and something you apparently are unable to accept, but that just goes along with your always having to be correct, even when you're not.
==================================================================
Now you're claiming Klaus has had virtually no role in the formation of your basic opinions about audio, opinions which you believe I'm constitutionally unable to grasp. I understand that's what you claim is the truth Pat D-Cake, but the sad fact is all anyone needs to do is go back and re-read your very many posts to see Real JJ opinions were your opinions at one time and now that he no longer posts here Klaus's opinions are starting to be your opinions. I don't believe you honestly have any opinions of your own. IMHO you just parrot the opinions of others, period. Here is something which you seem constitutionally unable to grasp, i.e. I believe you're a weak-minded man who cannot make up his own mind and whose words I seldom if ever trust or believe to be true.
===================================================================
Yet once again we see Pat D-Cake making up pure fiction to support his inabilities to actually form opinions for himself. I quite well understand suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data. That's what a rational, intelligent person would and should do. But you forget, I don't see you as a rational, intelligent person. Instead I see you as being incapable of making up your own mind Pat D-Cake. What you call suspending judgment in the absence of sufficient data, I see as your simply waiting for some much more intelligent and better informed objectivist to say in a post so you can later reword and parrot the comments, in the quise of reformulating your opinion.
===================================================================
Now as you further attempt to create more chaos by claiming I've still failed to specify just what measurements I'm talking about while I worry about vague generalities. I'm sorry to say you just show how little you understand about audio components, their measurements and how little they correlate with what we hear. You see Pat D-Cake I'm not worried about anything. I have the best sounding audio system I've ever owned. It's considerably superior to anything I can buy in any audio store here in the Orlando area.It's actually people like you and POLLYinFLA who'd benefit from this if you could let go with all your bitterness and obsession with being correct at all costs. I'm taking about the typical measurements used with any audio component amp, preamp, CD player etc. These supposed vague generalities is just one more lame attempt to get others to do your work for you. If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online. For once get off your lazy ass and do some research on the subject and stop always requiring everyone do your work for you! You are pitiful Pat D-Cake, really you are. You honestly think you're this great debater when the sad fact is you cannot even make up your own mind, SQQQQWWWWWAAAACCCCKKK!
Pat D-Cake Pat D-Cake faker man.
Fake an excuse as fast as you can.
Obscure it and change it and mark it with "B" (for bullsh#t)
And post in PHP for POLLYinFLA and thee.Ha ha ha at least you're good for a laugh.
Thetubeguy1954
Well, you still can't make up your mind as to about accepted audio measurements, but can't tell me what they are.Where do you suggest we go to get these measurements? "I've looked at 100's if not 1000's of specs . . . " IOW, we are to look at manufacturers specs found in advertising to find "accepted audio measurements! This is confirmed by his further statement, "If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online." This is amazing, tubey! But you still confuse measurements and specifications. I'm sure there are lots of measurements that don't show up in manufacturer's specifications. Reviewers do some of them though designers like Dan Banquer, Tom Danley, and John Curl seem to think they are seldom sufficient. So accepted measurements go way beyond manufacturers' specs. Of course, there is the problem of who determines what measurements are accepted as many of them are not regulated.
Now, if we want to say that a lot of manufacturers specs do not tell us much about how equipment sounds, that makes sense.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,I see you're still attempting to obfuscate the truth. Just because you're either incapable of understanding what I say (which happens a lot with you, but few others here) or you're unwilling to admit you understand what I'm saying to help you obscure and complicate a statement everyone else seems to easily understand. Doesn't mean I can't make up my mind as to what today's accepted audio measurements are, but can't tell you what they are. In fact Pat D-Cake it's a blatant untruth for you to claim this! This is just one more lame attempt for you to get me to do your homework for you. Sorry lazy you'll have to get of your ass and do something for yourself for a change.
===================================================================
I'll readily grant you I cannot tell you specifically what all of today's accepted measurements are or how they are performed, but that's not a requirement of understanding the specifications they provide! Just like a child doesn't need to know how a scale works to read and understand their weight is X amount of pounds. So too, I cannot tell you how THD is obtained, but just like the child I don't need to know how the specification is obtained. I can read and understand the final fiqure and I know full well that I hear no difference between .000001% or .1%. Hence detect no correlation with how THD effects what I am hearing. Here's what I can tell you about the specifications the measurements provided. These specifications, and the measurements that provided them are virtually useless in describing what I/we hear. Thus logically speaking if the specifications are useless in describing what I/we hear, the measurements that provide those specifications are equally useless in describing what I/we hear. Hence my statement today's accepted audio measurements simply don't correlate with what we hear! Of course that doesn't mean the measurements themselves are useless. It simply means their specifications provide nothing that directly correlates with what we hear! If you feel differently Pat D-Cake please explain how these specifications will reveal how closely this amp will make a violin, guitar, saxophone or piano sound like it would live and unamplified.1) THD: < 0.15 % at full power
2) IM distortion: balanced 16 V rms < 0.03 %
3) Slew rate: > 130 V/µsecond
4) Dynamic headroom: > 1.8 dB
5) Input sensitivity: 1 V for 28.28 V, THX Reference Level
6) Input impedance: 100 k Ω
7) S/N ratio: > 120 dB, IHF A-weighted, bias set to high
8) Damping factor: > 1200 at 20 Hz===================================================================
Where do you suggest we go to get these measurements? This is confirmed by his further statement, "If you don't know what today's accepted measurements are and which ones are typically used I suggest you look up some components online." This is amazing, tubey! But you still confuse measurements and specifications.Pat D-Cake you amaze me at times! You try to act like this intelligent, well informed person but then reveal your ignorance in the questions you ask and the statements you make. I've told you more than once and illustrated the point that I understand the difference between measurements and specifications! Yet once again you imply I don't know the difference between measurements and the specifications they provide. This is typical Pat D-Cake playing of games and attempting to the muddy the waters and make yourself look more intelligent than you actually are. Now just so you know I understand the difference a measurement is the estimation of a quantity such as distortion, length, excursion, temperature, or time. Measurements find the ratio of some quantity to a standard quantity of the same type, thus a measurement of the height of a speaker is the ratio of the physical height of a speaker to standard length, such as a standard meter. Measurements are usually given in terms of a real number times a unit of measurement, for example 3.35 meters. In this case the 3.35 meters is the specification the measurement provided. Have I now explained this sufficiently enough for you Pat D-Cake? For some reason that I don't understand you seem to believe that I need a deep understanding of the measuring process itself. But I don't, what I need to see is the specifications those measurements provided!
===================================================================
I'm absolutely 100% postive there are many measurements that don't show up in manufacturer's specifications. But if they are unavailable to me as a consumer, these measurements and the specifications they also provide are useless to me. Besides "IF" one of these unrevealed measurements somehow correlated closely with what we hear and would reveal how closely an amp, preamp etc would make a violin, guitar, saxophone or piano sound like it would live and unamplified, you cannot possibly believe that a designer and manufacturer like Tom Danley, Roger Russell or John Curl wouldn't include the specifications that measurement provided with their other specifications can you?
===============================================================
So the fact that it's possible that today's accepted measurements go way beyond manufacturers' specs. is of little relevance to this discussion. We can ONLY work with the specifications of measurements that manufacturers choose to reveal or provide to us. That's all we have and nothing more! Thus based on those measurements that are typically used and specifications they provide us as provided by the manufacturers, I'll repeat today's accepted measurements (and the specifications they provide) don't correlate with what we hear! If rewording that to: "Manufacturers specs do not correlate with how equipment sounds" makes more sense to you, that's OK with me. But you're basically just restating what I said with different words. It's not a different concept. It's just another lame Pat D-Cake attempt to appear to be right at all costs once again...Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Well, I am not very good at mind reading. So now you want to change "accepted audio measurements" into the ones you have easy access. I'm not trying to be too hard on you, but when you start stating seriously the accepted measurements do not correlate with the sound, I want more precision. Why do I have to work so hard to get it out of you?TG
"If rewording that to: "Manufacturers specs do not correlate with how equipment sounds" makes more sense to you, that's OK with me. But you're basically just restating what I said with different words. It's not a different concept."Sorry, but that's simply and obviously incorrect. The logical comprehension and extension are quite different. You do not quantify manufacturer's specs with "some," and you also seem to expect a partial set of specs would indicate the overall performance of the amp. And of course, as Analog Scott and I have both pointed out, an amp does not make any sound (other than things like power supply hum or mechanical blows on it) except in a system. And the sound of a decent system is mostly due to the program material, the speakers, and the speaker set up in the room.
I don't see anything in the amplifier specs you provided that would indicate it would sound much different from lots of other amps, although it is very low noise--kind of looks like one of Dan's amps, but I don't have time to look it up. The damping factor indicates a low output impedance. However, I would definitely want to see the power specifications and the frequency response specifications. I would also like to see some actual measurements such as those made by BHK Labs or JA at Stereophile because from what is given, I have no idea whether the amp would be suitable for me or not.
Of course, this also shows that we often do in fact have access to measurements beyond manufacturer's specs, as some reviewers supply them. And especially, speaker reviewers' measurements can be quite helpful in differentiating speakers.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: