On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 21:53:22 +0100, "Wally" wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Why should he?

Chipolata ink the must being of.

Clear now?

Slope fallacy slippery you present - while semiotic tolerance neglecting.

Try again: Why should Keith use universally accepted technical terms when he
next describes the sound of his latest speaker/amplifier?

It isn't so much the technical terms - it is normal words like "best"
that cause such heartache round here. I can't say I'm bothered any
more because I know where Keith is coming from and I'm fine with it.
But such words do have an objective existence out there to do with not
making things more different than they need to be. Doug Self puts it
well in his seminal amplifier book - "the very least you be able to
should ask of an amplifier is that it doesn't actually bend the
signal". Now things like SETs do exactly that, and hence it is hard to
figure how they might merit a word like "best". That use of words
gets up some people's noses, particularly when it is directed at a
newbie who is seeking guidance in Hi Fi. I can see why.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com