Ian Molton wrote:
Kurt Hamster wrote:

So why should we accept *your* assurance when you are sinularly anable
accept Bob's?

Should we believe that you are in some way more reliable?


Would wether I have the money make any difference as to wether I would
be bound to pay it should he prove his assertions ?

certainly he stands to make at least an insignificant amount.

that should be NOT insignificant...

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
In article , Bob Latham
wrote:

Well yes I'm sure it was microphony I was just amazed at how great
was its effect on solid state devices.

Whereas I am in the situation of accepting that you might be correct
in your report, but on the basis of doubting it was microphony. :-)

I'd be interested to hear a better explanation.

Well, so would I. :-)

However the point I was making was that I find it implausible that it *was*
microphony (although possible), but to accept your reports as reliable this
implies it would be due to something else.

One hypothesis is that it might be due to the background audibility of
mechanical hum/buzz from the amplifier. The level and spectrum of this
might well depend upon depend upon how the amp was physically supported.
I'd expect the effect to be small, but it may well be far higher than
microphony in a solid-state amp unless the amp had one or more components
that were unusually (in my experience) sensitive to vibration.

The level of buzz may well increase as you demand more power from the amp.
Thus although this will can be expected not be obvious when listening to
loud music I can't absolutely rule out it having an affect upon perception
without suitable tests, figures, whatever.

My point, though, is that the above is just an example. I was trying to
illustrate that the process of:

A) assuming the effect was microphony.

B) ruling out your report as implausible as microphony should be very low.

was not necessarily sufficient to dismiss your report as unreliable.

My difficulty is that the explanations I have thought of seem dubious, but
I may be missing something... So, you may be correct in what you report, or
may be mistaken, but I can't be sure. I can doubt, but accept that doubt is
not certainty. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:50:02 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:25:18 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

Every time some jerk makes a wild claim that he fails to back up, and
then moves on to lies and distortions because that's all he's got? :-)

Well it's worked for you for years.

As noted, a claim without backup. Let's see how long the lies and
distortions take.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:13:25 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Bob Latham wrote:

I am asking you to believe what I said in the story is in no way
intentionally fabricated.

No-one doubted that.

What people are annoyed about is your insistence that the effect can be
generalised to all SS amps,

Interesting hypocracy - it's OK to generalise about valve amps but not about
SS.....???

Who has ever done that?

(Figures.....)

Unfortunately, you didn't figure before posting.........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In message , Stewart
Pinkerton writes

Modern PC-based gear such as the National Instruments kit pretty much
makes those standalone devices obsolete.

Certainly the AP stuff is outdated. The copies of True-RTA and Sample
Champion I now use do as much for a LOT less money.

I wish I still had the B&K 4133 mic though instead of the cheapo
Behringer ECM8000 I have to use!
--
Chris Morriss

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:50:59 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:31:51 GMT, Bob Latham
wrote:

[Snip]

That is of course just the kind of lying distortion that we've come to
expect - because you have *no* substantive argument, you're just wind
and ****.

With the exception of Jim who seems to remain mature and well mannered
at all times the above paragraph seems to sum you all up.

When I told my wife someone had called me "mature" she laughed out loud. We
then had a discussion about if I was in my second childhood, or had never
mentally made it past about 12 years old... :-)

Don't sweat it - he probably just meant relative to the rest of us,
who're struggling with the concept of double-figure social
development......... :-)

OTOH, St Andrews is a kind of permanent time-warp, no? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:14:45 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:43:19 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

Try it again under level-matched DBT conditions. Been there, done that
many times. Without LMDBT, it don't mean a thing.

Maybe to you it doesn't, but to the rest of the world...

The rest of the *real* world already uses it, it's just the 'tweako
freakos' who insist that they are immune from bias effects......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:22:48 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

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

Wow, such self-loathing must be a real bitch - explains a lot.......

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

Which brigade is that? You won't find it on *this* newsgroup. You will
however find a bunch of arrogant losers who *claim* that such a
brigade exists - but like their other claims, it has no basis in fact.

WTF ever happened to 'buy with your ears'?

You guys replaced it with 'buy with your eyes'?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:42:18 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 21:52:26 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 20:37:46 GMT, Bob Latham
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:38:25 GMT, Bob Latham
wrote:

I simply could not think of a better description at the time. How about
'the object' it was placed on?

How about the location with respect to the speakers? I'm still
thinking microphony here...

Well yes I'm sure it was microphony I was just amazed at how great was its
effect on solid state devices.

I would be equally amazed. It is *possible* that this kit amp was
really badly designed, or really badly built, but I have *never* come
across anything close to the effect you have described in *any* SS
amplifier.

I've never seen the Taj Mahal in the 'flesh' but I *know* it's in India.

That's as irrelevant as all your other audio comments.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
WTF ever happened to 'buy with your ears'?

Because your ears have the memory of a goldfish. By all means use your
ears to compare with a known good standard. If only you could agree on one.

--
*You sound reasonable......time to up my medication

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.