 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.154.141.22
In Reply to: Since Peter Aczel's use of the phrase upsets you, why don't you ask him what he means by it? posted by Pat D on April 14, 2007 at 11:31:49:
Pat D-Cake,The very obvious and quite simply answer is, I wanted to know what others here at PHP considered the correct answers for 1-5 below to be! Gosh Pat D-Cake for someone who attempts to come off as an intelligent debater and philosopher, I'm amazed at how often you need the blatantly obvious explained to you... If you spent 1/10th the time you took harassing me with stupid questions and used it to talk intelligently about the topics raised, you might actually be worth talking with. As it is once again you've offered NOTHING of value to the topic raised.
1) What figure represents what high input impedance is?
2) What figure represents what low output impedance is?
3) What level of deviation +/- 1dB, +/- 3dB, +/- 5dB etc. and what range of frequencies 20-20Khz, 10-100Khz, 1-1Mhz etc constitutes flat frequency response?
4) What figure represents what low distortion is?
5) What figure represents what low noise floor is?Thetubeguy1954
Follow Ups:
Pardon me, but your own thread title reads: "What Constitues [sic] A "Properly Designed" Amp?"And several people have given you their own insightful takes on the matter.
Now, we find you ignore your own question and really want people here to explicitate what Peter Aczel meant! And, as I have pointed out, the proper person to ask about those specific criteria is Peter Aczel himself. We are not responsibile for his wording.
Besides, you also include some seemingly contrary to fact assumptions in your second set of questions about who decided it, as if there were some widely recognized authority for setting such criteria. Again, the person to ask is Peter Aczel, after cleaning up those questions to make better sense.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,As I told you many times you just obfuscate topics raised by asking questions that are blatantly obvious to everyone but you! "IF" I wanted to know Aczel's opinion I would have asked him, by asking on PHP the implication is I want the members opinions.
As far as your further attempt to obscure the topic by claiming "We are not responsibile for his wording." Who the heck ever asked you or anyone else to be responsible for these words? Many here appear to agree with them, yourself included, so you should have an opinion on the matter. Or is this just one more case of you following the leader and allowing others to make up your mind for you? Let's see just read what Real JJ, Klaus and Aczel say, cut and paste and we'll know what you really believe, huh?
Once again you have absolutely ZERO to offer to the topic raised. But rather just prefer to cloud the issue with questions about the obvious and remarks that hold no relevance to the topic, like the assinine comment about not being responsible for Aczel's words! For all your attempts at appearing like an intelligent debater and philospher your posts belie that impression.
Have a nice day...
Thetubeguy1954
well?
It's the old "get it from the horse's mouth" rather than getting it second hand.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pointing isn't answering. An actual answer would have had a list of distortions and the thresholds of audibility for each one. That is just for starters.
"An actual answer would have had a list of distortions and the thresholds of audibility for each one."To some extent, you have a point. But tubey wants to know what Peter Aczel means by "well designed amplifier" and I quite properly pointed out that he should ask Mr. Aczel, or perhaps one of his associates.
As well, tubey makes some contrary to fact assumptions in his questions. In the past, he seems to have thought that just because he puts a question, that it can and ought to be answered in the same terms in which he posed it. But not all questions make sense.
First of all, his questions about thresholds assumes there is some figure which should answer each question properly, and for that matter, you may do so, as well. But this is not true, as far as I can tell. What constitutes 'quiet enough,' for example, would vary with the sensitivity of the speakers, the frequency range of the noise, the listening level, and the listeners' hearing acuity, "just for starters."
Second, tubey wants to know who set the accepted standards for the various criteria. As Presto has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any universally accepted standards for the characteristics he asks about. This does not necessarily mean that Mr. Aczel's criteria would be completely arbitrary, as he may base them on his long experience with DBTs. So again, the appropriate person to ask about about Peter Aczel's reasons for saying what he does is Mr. Aczel or maybe one of his associates.
Both you and tubey seem to want to dictate linguistic usage. Tubey seems to think his definition of accuracy in audio components should be accepted as opposed to Richard Greene's--and Richard's have the distinct virtue of being measureable. You want to dictate what constitutes an answer, even though in this situation, the most appropriate answer is to direct tubey to the person whose statements he questions, Mr. Aczel.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
So what is the point? Do you have nothing better to do? I clarified Tubeguy's question, he agreed with my clarification. That clarified question had nothing to do with Peter Aczel and addressed the parameters of speaker load. And still you hang on to the semantics of the orignal question instead of addressing the clarified version. That smacks of a desire to argue about stupid things rather than offer meaningful answers. Hey if that's what gives you a woody whatever.
You say "I clarified Tubeguy's question, he agreed with my clarification." Which of the many questions did you clarify? And where?Moreover, if you think trying to get clear questions and intelligible discourse is silly, so be it.
____________________________________________________
"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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
