"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:09:23 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


So, to clarify, is the following OK with you: 'valves = nice sound but
not
very accurate', 'SS = accurate but not a very nice sound' and that
either
form of amplification chosen is likely to be an acceptable
compromise/combination of both these characteristics, based on the
user's
personal preferences??

I'd remove the valve/SS distinction altogether.



Agreed.

Actually I don't give a ******** what people think either way - I *know*
what I prefer. Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I don't seek to
convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people to be cautious when
considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....)

What I'm curious about is what valve amp have you got that you don't use?


just say some people prefer a system that modifies the sound, others dont.


All systems modify sound - if it ain't the amp, the speakers'll do
it.......

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:10:30 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound,
but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound.

Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology.

Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a
recording is?

I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't
cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as
much as an equivalently powerful SS amp.

So how much exactly was your Krell?

Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell
as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load
(which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which
will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will
cost you at least ten grand..........................

And the price of those speakers that caused you to 'have' to buy an amp
like a Krell?

About 4 grand. I have *always* recommended spending most of the budget
on speakers in a modern system, and then buying enough amplifier to
drive them. Note that my source is a £250 Sony player.................

Methinks your idea of a fortune is rather different to mine.

Possibly, but you always were small-minded.

Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that
sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time.

Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent.

But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you
can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear
how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV).

Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get
accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to
get a rosy wash over *all* their music....................

I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting
to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to spend
an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have.

Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few
minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with
basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less
than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose

The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would you
*want* to hear the bad recordings? It can only distract from what may be
a good performance.

I don't want to hear bad recordings per se, but sometimes you're stuck
with the sods, because the *performance* is ace. That's also why I
still have a turntable. You've probably forgotten that it's really all
about the music.

The difference of course is that on a *great* recording, a truly
accurate system is *way* better than one of those rose-tinted 'easy
listening' jobs that you seem to favour.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:10:30 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound,
but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound.

Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology.

Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how bad a
recording is?

I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't
cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as
much as an equivalently powerful SS amp.

So how much exactly was your Krell?

Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell
as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load
(which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which
will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will
cost you at least ten grand..........................

And the price of those speakers that caused you to 'have' to buy an amp
like a Krell?

About 4 grand. I have *always* recommended spending most of the budget
on speakers in a modern system, and then buying enough amplifier to
drive them. Note that my source is a £250 Sony player.................

Methinks your idea of a fortune is rather different to mine.

Possibly, but you always were small-minded.

Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems that
sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time.

Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent.

But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much, you
can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear
how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV).

Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get
accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to
get a rosy wash over *all* their music....................

I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours) attempting
to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to spend
an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have.

Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few
minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with
basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less
than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose

The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would you
*want* to hear the bad recordings? It can only distract from what may be
a good performance.

I don't want to hear bad recordings per se, but sometimes you're stuck
with the sods, because the *performance* is ace. That's also why I
still have a turntable. You've probably forgotten that it's really all
about the music.

The difference of course is that on a *great* recording, a truly
accurate system is *way* better than one of those rose-tinted 'easy
listening' jobs that you seem to favour.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Keith G wrote:

... Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I
don't seek to convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people
to be cautious when considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....)

Except for when you wrote...

------------------------------
Right, sounds like you've got the signal best part sorted. To cap it off
now, go the next step and get it routed through a decent valve amp. Beg,
borrow or steal summat that'll push out about 25-30W a side, switch it on
and give it about 20 minutes to get the 'trons organised, put on something
'full bodied', crank it up about halfway and strap yerself in tight.......!!

(Then come back here and tell me you *didn't* like it!!!)
------------------------------

:-)


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

Keith G wrote:

... Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I
don't seek to convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people
to be cautious when considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....)

Except for when you wrote...

------------------------------
Right, sounds like you've got the signal best part sorted. To cap it off
now, go the next step and get it routed through a decent valve amp. Beg,
borrow or steal summat that'll push out about 25-30W a side, switch it on
and give it about 20 minutes to get the 'trons organised, put on something
'full bodied', crank it up about halfway and strap yerself in tight.......!!

(Then come back here and tell me you *didn't* like it!!!)
------------------------------

:-)


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
On webcam: Black Cat In Coal Cellar

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:10:30 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound,
but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound.

Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology.

Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how
bad a
recording is?

I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't
cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as
much as an equivalently powerful SS amp.

So how much exactly was your Krell?

Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell
as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load
(which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which
will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will
cost you at least ten grand..........................

And the price of those speakers that caused you to 'have' to buy an amp
like a Krell?

About 4 grand. I have *always* recommended spending most of the budget
on speakers in a modern system, and then buying enough amplifier to
drive them. Note that my source is a £250 Sony player.................

Methinks your idea of a fortune is rather different to mine.

Possibly, but you always were small-minded.

Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems
that
sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time.

Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent.

But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much,
you
can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear
how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV).

Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get
accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to
get a rosy wash over *all* their music....................

I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours)
attempting
to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to
spend
an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have.

Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few
minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with
basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less
than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose

The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would you
*want* to hear the bad recordings? It can only distract from what may be
a good performance.

I don't want to hear bad recordings per se, but sometimes you're stuck
with the sods, because the *performance* is ace. That's also why I
still have a turntable. You've probably forgotten that it's really all
about the music.

The difference of course is that on a *great* recording, a truly
accurate system is *way* better than one of those rose-tinted 'easy
listening' jobs that you seem to favour.



Am I reading this right???? (From the world's worst 'too posh/can't be arsed
to snip' poster here????)

(Bull**** again?)

:-)

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:10:30 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 15:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:31:17 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 12:00:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:42:29 +0000, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:32:13 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

SS=accurate, so if you have a great recording, you get great sound,
but if you have a bad recording, you get bad sound.

Yes that's a good idea for a home entertainment methodology.

Why don't we all go out and spend a fortune so that we can see how
bad a
recording is?

I think you miss the other point, which is that good SS amps don't
cost much, but good valve amps cost a fortune, at least four times as
much as an equivalently powerful SS amp.

So how much exactly was your Krell?

Less than a grand. Please note that I've never recommended any Krell
as a new purchase, unless you have a seriously tough speaker load
(which I do). Also note that an equivalent valve amp (i.e. one which
will output 400 watts into a 1 ohm load with minimal distortion), will
cost you at least ten grand..........................

And the price of those speakers that caused you to 'have' to buy an amp
like a Krell?

About 4 grand. I have *always* recommended spending most of the budget
on speakers in a modern system, and then buying enough amplifier to
drive them. Note that my source is a £250 Sony player.................

Methinks your idea of a fortune is rather different to mine.

Possibly, but you always were small-minded.

Meanwhile the less anal retentive of us make sure we have a systems
that
sounds how we want it to sound most (if not all) of the time.

Sounds like this would be a good way of justifying the money spent.

But seeing as you are bank employee who is probably paid too much,
you
can afford to go out and spend money on something that let's you hear
how bad something is. MMdV (similar to YMMV).

Shame that you're too dumb to realise that I spend *less* money to get
accurate sound, than the vinyl, valves and freaky cable gang spend to
get a rosy wash over *all* their music....................

I'm not dumb enough to spend fortunes (and lots of man hours)
attempting
to find out which are bad recordings and which aren't. I prefer to
spend
an appropriate amount and time on enjoying what I have.

Actually, if you have an *accurate* system, it takes only a few
minutes to discover which are bad recordings. My TV sound system, with
basic 2nd generation DVD player, Audiolab 8000P and Tannoy 633s (less
than a grand all in), is more than adequate for that purpose

The point has disappeared over your aging head once again. Why would you
*want* to hear the bad recordings? It can only distract from what may be
a good performance.

I don't want to hear bad recordings per se, but sometimes you're stuck
with the sods, because the *performance* is ace. That's also why I
still have a turntable. You've probably forgotten that it's really all
about the music.

The difference of course is that on a *great* recording, a truly
accurate system is *way* better than one of those rose-tinted 'easy
listening' jobs that you seem to favour.



Am I reading this right???? (From the world's worst 'too posh/can't be arsed
to snip' poster here????)

(Bull**** again?)

:-)

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:40:44 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


OK, but very often has other 'effects' like killing the imaging,

given imaging is in the higher freqencies, and the 'rosy' sound has a
rolled off treble I dont see how you can justify that

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:40:44 -0000
"Keith G" wrote:


OK, but very often has other 'effects' like killing the imaging,

given imaging is in the higher freqencies, and the 'rosy' sound has a
rolled off treble I dont see how you can justify that

--
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux

Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

... Contrary to something mentioned a while back, I
don't seek to convert anyone and, more often than not, advise people
to be cautious when considering valves. (They ain't for everyone....)

Except for when you wrote...

------------------------------
Right, sounds like you've got the signal best part sorted. To cap it off
now, go the next step and get it routed through a decent valve amp. Beg,
borrow or steal summat that'll push out about 25-30W a side, switch it on
and give it about 20 minutes to get the 'trons organised, put on something
'full bodied', crank it up about halfway and strap yerself in
tight.......!!

(Then come back here and tell me you *didn't* like it!!!)
------------------------------

:-)



Ah, but I *knew* you were a 'suitable case for treatment' - the proof was
that you *already* have got a valve amp!

;-)