Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
When you spread a near fixed pot of money across a *vastly* wider
choice of channels costs have to be cut. And the easiest cost to cut
is engineering standards.


Yep.

I'll avoid the usual comments about 'digital' & 'modern' being
quicker/easier/flashier/cheaper with much more choice (?) but feck-all
real worth.... ;-)

In terms of 'our' side of things, the current standard digital DigiBeta
(used for major productions) which does both sound and vision is
absolutely *streets* ahead of the earlier 'standard' Beta SP. Especially
sound wise. It has four tracks of genuine CD quality available. Beta SP
had two linear tracks with Dolby C and two FM tracks - out of sync with
the others. Rather like a VHS.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

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

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:16:14 +0200, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Feb 2006 05:12:35 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:


Hello Serge: your posts are clearly argued and easy to read.

Before defending Pinkerton you might want to deliberate on why he tells
people
"the Cambridge unit will provide audibly superior performance" or
various other such things that slip indiscriminately out of his mouth,
and which he seems to conveniently forget he said.


Perhaps you might want to stop lying, and taking phrases out of
context. I said that, at the budget of £150 which was being discussed,
it was *probable* that the Cambridge would be audibly superior to the
others mentioned.

Yes, they will have audible differences amongst themselves but they will
sound the same of any highend amp, provided that the highend amp lives
up to the task! :) You dumb dumb silly old fart.

If you can't concoct an argument without making up fairy stories, you
might as well give up.

Maybe you should just start using reliable and repeatable listening
tests,

You incompetent bafooon! You know very well that "reliable and
repeatable listening tests" would make *everything* sound the same
across the board.

Incompetent bafooon? It's spelled buffoon, you cretin.

And those tests are used because they are the *most* sensitive for
*real* differences. They won't of course reveal purely imaginary
differences, which would be your problem with them, Mr Tio.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:30:59 +0200, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 10 Feb 2006 15:52:19 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

Pinkerton:
I use a Krell because I have insensitive 3-ohm speakers, and it's
also
a useful reference for comparisons.

Why would you need a reference for comparisons, since all amplifiers
sound the same?.

Who ever said that?

You did, many times. You despicable pricky old fart.

No I didn't , you pathetic clown.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

wrote:

Hello all,

I thinking of venturing into the world of hi-fi seperates and I'm
starting by looking for an amplifier. I don't have a great budget for
this, around £150, therefore I have narrowed my choice down to the
following:

Cambridge Audio AZUR 340A
Sony TA-FE370
Marantz PM4001

I can find a bit on the net about the CA amp but not much about the
others.

So what I was wondering is if there is much to choose from these
models, or at this price range am I likely to find that they are all
much of a muchness?

Thanks in advance and sorry if this sort of question has been asked a
million times before.

matt

Then you understand that everyone's likely to have a different response
to this question. For example, you're right about your budget not being
very great, and if I had only £150 (brings me back to my salad days as
a budding audiophile....), well rather than waltzing into Goodman's to
see what's on offer, I'd just as soon visit my local used audio shop,
to see what is available from old stock. For £150, you might be able
to snare an old Sugden or Mission amp (once bought an Onyx for around
that price, privately!), which will cream some of the things you're
looking at new. If you don't have a shop that sells used gear, I'd just
go for the Cambridge. Although if you can find a used 640A in your
budget.....

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:30:59 +0200, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


On 10 Feb 2006 15:52:19 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:


Pinkerton:
I use a Krell because I have insensitive 3-ohm speakers, and it's
also
a useful reference for comparisons.

Why would you need a reference for comparisons, since all amplifiers
sound the same?.

Who ever said that?

You did, many times. You despicable pricky old fart.


No I didn't , you pathetic clown.

Oh yes you did you despicable pricky old fart. You waste of words. You
waste of air. You waste.

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:16:14 +0200, Fella wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 11 Feb 2006 05:12:35 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:



Hello Serge: your posts are clearly argued and easy to read.

Before defending Pinkerton you might want to deliberate on why he tells
people
"the Cambridge unit will provide audibly superior performance" or
various other such things that slip indiscriminately out of his mouth,
and which he seems to conveniently forget he said.


Perhaps you might want to stop lying, and taking phrases out of
context. I said that, at the budget of £150 which was being discussed,
it was *probable* that the Cambridge would be audibly superior to the
others mentioned.

Yes, they will have audible differences amongst themselves but they will
sound the same of any highend amp, provided that the highend amp lives
up to the task! :) You dumb dumb silly old fart.


If you can't concoct an argument without making up fairy stories, you
might as well give up.


Maybe you should just start using reliable and repeatable listening
tests,

You incompetent bafooon! You know very well that "reliable and
repeatable listening tests" would make *everything* sound the same
across the board.


Incompetent bafooon? It's spelled buffoon, you cretin.

You are so-o stoopid you bafooon of a crouton of a despicable old fart you.

Ok, so now come back to me with "It's spelled stupid, and croutons are A
small crisp piece of toasted or fried bread used in soups mr tio" .. You
predictable piece of **** alienated old fart of a waste of flesh you.
You PUKErton you.


And those tests are used because they are the *most* sensitive for
*real* differences.

IF they are done by highly trained highly skilled professionals. They
are no trivial matter since blinding introduces a bias and curtains of
its own. Been there, done that.

BTW: How 'bout that protocol Don Pearce came up with? I see that you are
keeping your asshole shut up about it, wisely, I might add.


They won't of course reveal purely imaginary
differences, which would be your problem with them, Mr Tio.

No my problem with them is that they mask real-life differences, mr
everythingsoundsthesameexceptwhenisaythattheydonot . Idiot! You freckin
idiot.