Andre Jute wrote:

You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their
responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps
reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one
heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape
and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really
have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous,
that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound
*heard in the concert hall* than silicon.

You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined
effects box and amplifier, that can compensate
for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer
endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto
the master tape.

If so, SETs are indeed remarkable.

BugBear

You will never get what Mr. McCoy actually means... if he were to go
there, he would have to stand by it.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"bugbear" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their
responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps
reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one
heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape
and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really
have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous,
that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound
*heard in the concert hall* than silicon.

You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined
effects box and amplifier, that can compensate
for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer
endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto
the master tape.


If so, SETs are indeed remarkable.

BugBear

Hello BB. Is this supposed to be humour?
I saw no smiley.

As for "arbitrary mistakes made by the recording
engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound
onto the master tape" Your comment suggests that you
know little about recording. Anything less "arbitrary"
is difficult to imagine.

Hopefully you know more about SET amps.

Have you ever built, or listened to one?


Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"bugbear" wrote in message
...
Andre Jute wrote:

You see, the key argument the silicon slime make is that their
responsibility stops at the point wher they can prove that their amps
reproduce the master tape perfectly. But that is never the sound one
heard in the concert hall. The argument then shifts to the master tape
and what it includes or does not include. SET or PP class A amps really
have nothing to do with this; it is quite incidental, if fortuitous,
that from the same master tape they are better at reproducing the sound
*heard in the concert hall* than silicon.

You mean that a SET amplifier is (in effect) a combined
effects box and amplifier, that can compensate
for arbitrary mistakes made by the recording engineer
endeavouring to put the concert hall sound onto
the master tape.


If so, SETs are indeed remarkable.

BugBear

Hello BB. Is this supposed to be humour?
I saw no smiley.

As for "arbitrary mistakes made by the recording
engineer endeavouring to put the concert hall sound
onto the master tape" Your comment suggests that you
know little about recording. Anything less "arbitrary"
is difficult to imagine.

Hopefully you know more about SET amps.

Have you ever built, or listened to one?



I'm with Andre on this - I'm not going to apologise for or try to explain
why I like SETs.

Maybe, like Jazz (or Joan Baez Vols 1 and 2), they ain't for the Great
Unwashed after all....??

**** 'em....

Keith G wrote:

I'm with Andre on this - I'm not going to apologise for or try to explain
why I like SETs.

Interesting approach to a discussion forum.

BugBear