Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Ian Molton wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:


excuse my ignorance, but what is the md system? something more
flexible than a RAID system?


its the linux multiple (block) device system. kinda like an MMU for
block devices. you could run it on top of, or underneath, a RAID setup,
if you liked. for my purposes, its basically a lightweight raid without
the hassle.


Ta. Might look into it the next time I upgrade my PC. It will either be
a tax deductible laptop for work purposes, or a desktop with bells and
whistles.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Kurt Hamster wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:59:47 +1000, Tat Chan used
to say...


Kurt Hamster wrote:



Heheheh, wish I was :)

Pontificating, pious prats who insist on 'do as I say, not as I do' ****
me right off.

Not to mention the "MUST measure it before I use it brigade"...

WTF ever happened to 'buy with your ears'?


'buy with your ears' didn't go away ... it just has been improved to
produce a level playing field and remove bias when auditioning equipment
for purchase ...

(of course, putting aside things like cost, looks and features)


Why should bias be put aside?

Bias should be put aside if the purpose of the listening tests are to
identify differences in sound (or sonic attributes)

However, if the main purpose of purchasing a new piece of equipment is
not based on sonic attributes, then you are right, bias shouldn't be put
aside.

Factors like price, looks, ease of use, features, brand name, pride of
ownership, etc contribute towards one's decision.



The equipment is being bought to mainly bring pleasure isn't it?

Or is it?

Sure, I have no problems with that. I should have mentioned in my
earlier post that bias should be removed when auditioning equipment
based on sonic attributes alone.

For example, I have a DVD player and CD player in my system. I can't
tell the difference between CD playback on the 2 players (if there are
differences, they are not night and day), however I use my CD player for
CD playback because

- I like the large time and track display on the CD player
- my amp's remote control operates the CD player as well
- my DVD player remote control is a PITA to use compared to the amp's
remote

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...
Kurt Hamster wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:59:47 +1000, Tat Chan used
to say...

Kurt Hamster wrote:



Heheheh, wish I was :)

Pontificating, pious prats who insist on 'do as I say, not as I do' ****
me right off.

Not to mention the "MUST measure it before I use it brigade"...

WTF ever happened to 'buy with your ears'?


'buy with your ears' didn't go away ... it just has been improved to
produce a level playing field and remove bias when auditioning equipment
for purchase ...

(of course, putting aside things like cost, looks and features)


Why should bias be put aside?

Bias should be put aside if the purpose of the listening tests are to
identify differences in sound (or sonic attributes)

However, if the main purpose of purchasing a new piece of equipment is not
based on sonic attributes, then you are right, bias shouldn't be put
aside.

Factors like price, looks, ease of use, features, brand name, pride of
ownership, etc contribute towards one's decision.


Anybody got any *meaningful* statistics on how much kit is bought on impulse
simply because it was *there* and was different fom the intended/planned
purchase....???

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Hi,

In message , Ian Molton
writes
Tat Chan wrote:
Back in my days, you were lucky to get a 40MB hard drive!

Indeed. My first HDD was a 20MB ST506 drive...

Any advance on 5MB? Until last year I still had my first full height 5
1/4 inch Seagate. It formatted about 5MB with MFM, if I remember. And
the bad news... it cost over a thousand quid.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Glenn Booth wrote:

Any advance on 5MB? Until last year I still had my first full height 5
1/4 inch Seagate. It formatted about 5MB with MFM, if I remember. And
the bad news... it cost over a thousand quid.

I just bought 160 gigs for 75 quid. So, per meg, yours would have been 200
quid, mine would be... £0.00047.

A bang-for-the-buck ratio of about 425,532 to 1.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:20:26 +0100, "Wally"
wrote:

Glenn Booth wrote:

Any advance on 5MB? Until last year I still had my first full height 5
1/4 inch Seagate. It formatted about 5MB with MFM, if I remember. And
the bad news... it cost over a thousand quid.

I just bought 160 gigs for 75 quid. So, per meg, yours would have been 200
quid, mine would be... £0.00047.

A bang-for-the-buck ratio of about 425,532 to 1.

I think thew point is to remember that 'the good old days' weren't aht
good. When the IBM PC was launched in 1981 - just a year before
Compact Disc - it had 64KB of RAM, an 8-bit 4.77 MHz processor, 640 x
480 monochrome graphics, and 'mass storage' was not a hard disk, but a
pair of 160KB 5 1/4" floppies! IOW, for about $4,000, you got
something with a fraction of the power of a modern $10 pocket
calculator, and an infinitesimal fraction of the power of a $200 PDA.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



I think thew point is to remember that 'the good old days' weren't aht
good. When the IBM PC was launched in 1981 - just a year before
Compact Disc - it had 64KB of RAM, an 8-bit 4.77 MHz processor, 640 x
480 monochrome graphics,

nitpicking here, but the 8088 was a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit data bus.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Tat Chan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


I think thew point is to remember that 'the good old days' weren't aht
good. When the IBM PC was launched in 1981 - just a year before
Compact Disc - it had 64KB of RAM, an 8-bit 4.77 MHz processor, 640 x
480 monochrome graphics,

nitpicking here, but the 8088 was a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit data bus.

....and you didn't get monocrome graphics - only monocrome text!

Best regards,

Mikkel C. Simonsen

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:18:59 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



I think thew point is to remember that 'the good old days' weren't aht
good. When the IBM PC was launched in 1981 - just a year before
Compact Disc - it had 64KB of RAM, an 8-bit 4.77 MHz processor, 640 x
480 monochrome graphics,

nitpicking here, but the 8088 was a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit data bus.

Quite so, and hence in reality an 8-bit processor, not truly any
faster than the Z-80. IIRC, Olivetti were the first to unleash the
awesome power of the full 16-bit 4.77MHz 8086!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:18:59 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



I think thew point is to remember that 'the good old days' weren't aht
good. When the IBM PC was launched in 1981 - just a year before
Compact Disc - it had 64KB of RAM, an 8-bit 4.77 MHz processor, 640 x
480 monochrome graphics,

nitpicking here, but the 8088 was a 16-bit CPU with an 8-bit data bus.


Quite so, and hence in reality an 8-bit processor, not truly any
faster than the Z-80.

Ah, the Z80 ... I believe my friends who did mech eng had to write
assembly code for those chips.

My PC/XT sure seemed faster than my Sinclair ZX81 ... though
the PC/XT had 640kB of RAM compared with the ZX81's 16kB ... and a
"turbo" mode that switched the clock speed from 4.77 to 10MHz.


IIRC, Olivetti were the first to unleash the
awesome power of the full 16-bit 4.77MHz 8086!

Olivetti ... now that is a name from the past.