"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message


"jaap" wrote

As for the orchestra which is in need of 10 or more
watts to be reproduced correctly, this is again a
(1970) sales story. Right now I am listening through
a 1.5 watt amplifier giving me more than enough
decibells to feed the 4x6 meter room. Hardrock or
orchestra, no problem. The problem is with the
loudspeakers, not having made serious progress since
1960.

I run two parallel systems: 100 SS Watts into 82 (84?)
dB speakers and 8 or 9 valve Watts into high 90s
speaker - the valve setup blows the other one away on
the *loudness* front!!

No prejudice there.

Yours or mine....??

Good question. The claim that a 10 watt amp sounds
louder and cleaner


Cleaner? Who said anything about that? (Interesting litle
'pop-up', that one...)


than a
100 watt amp only makes sense if there is something very
wrong with the 100 watt amp. When it turns out that the
reliably-audible defects tend to cluster around the 10
watt amp, then doesn't the person making the claim
become suspect?

Not nearly as suspect as someone who can make those
suppositions on kit he doesn't know/hasn't heard -
*reeks* of prejudice that does, but I guess the speakers'
sensitivity figures flew over your head, as they did
Plowie....


Following your own self-contradictory illogic Keith, why would your
claimed sensitivity numbers be meaningful at all to me, given that I
haven't heard them?



Steady on, squire - you'll have the Plowborg round your ears, going on about
your lack of knowledge of electronics and/or banging on about the Laws Of
Physics....

....except that he'll probably append that to one my posts, if he follows his
usual, twisty form....