Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

On 11 Feb 2006 04:46:26 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

So amplifiers all sound the same except some sound the same louder.

Not what I said, of course: ingenuously ventured Pinkerton

I don't think you even know what you are saying anymore. Amplifiers
sound the same in DBTs out of one side of your mouth and various actual
amplifiers including of course yours, which you chose on that basis,
sound 'better'.

I have never said either of those things, you pathetic liar. *Some*
amplifiers certainly do sound the same in DBTs, the well-designed ones
all sound the same. My Krell does not sound 'better' than any other
competent amplifier.

Do you want to make a choice between these two views or
are you happy to muddle along in a hypocritical way saying the first
words that come out of your mouth?

You really are cracking up, aren't you Evans?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:28:56 -0000, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:


"Andy Evans" wrote in message
roups.com...
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. You might come to
the conclusion that there are some serious double standards going on in
this newsgroup. You may come to the conclusion that in practice even
hardened proponants of the scientific method will casually say "to my
ears this sounds better than that". You may then come to the same
conclusion as I did - that if people are doing one thing in theory and
another in practice, then it may be interesting to re-examine the
theory. Andy


Andy, Stewart Pinkerton is perfectly capable of (vocally) defending
himself, so I don't think I need to do it. I thought I would point out the
consistency of his statements. As to double standards, I can't make any
comment other than say that the reply about the Cambridge unit surprised me
when stated without any supporting information. He may well be right when
comparing the Cambridge unit with the others mentioned, but there is no way
of telling that from his statement.

I have experienec of the Sony unit buckling into 4-ohm Dynaudio
speakers, and of the Cambridge unit driving them well. My comments are
based on that, on the general problems of that very low amplifier
budget, and you'll note that I suggested the Cambridge would
*probably* be audibly superior. Compare and contrast with Evans
combination of lies, misquotations, and ludicrous unsupported absolute
claims about the sound of passive components. The man clearly has
psychological problems.

I agree with you that even as a hardened proponent of the scientific method
...if you meant that to apply to me, I take it as a compliment....I do
occasionally say that something sounds better than something else. When that
happens, I try to apply the scientific method to finding out why. It may
well be my imagination, or there is a definable reason for it. In the case
of electronics, the chances are that there is no difference once sources are
level matched. With transducers, it is more likely that they *are*
different, and I prefer one to the other. I do not just accept my own word
it as it is too easy to be mistaken.

I find that audible differences among amplifiers tend to track to
inadequate power supplies, or basic incompetence such as HF distortion
and crossover distortion.

Of course, if you pay several thousand pounds and buy a so-called
'high-end' amplifier designed by some lifestyle guru rather than an
electronics engineer, then anything can happen! :-)

What doesn't sit comfortably is the subjectivist view that if they hear a
difference, then there is one, and their ears are all the instruments they
need. As said above, level matching is essential, as is confirming that the
technical measurements are all below the threshold for audibility. Once that
is done, then blind testing will immediately show up if there is an audible
difference.

Indeed, and I must say that I am greatly encouraged by the apparent
return of the 'old' Audiolab range, properly engineered with top
quality at a reasonable price as the design goal.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

On 11 Feb 2006 06:00:52 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

Hi Serge:
Stewart uses a Krell because his 'speakers are a 3 ohm load, which
very little else will drive.
I won't go down that road - my brothers Apogees have been driven by
quite a few amplifiers, of which the present Nagra VPA 845 push pull
is, to him, considerably superior to the Krell it replaced. But that's
another subject.

Indeed it is, and I'm certainly prepared to believe that a push-pull
valve amp will sound different from a Krell when driving Apogees. As
to it being 'better', that may be more a reflection of the known cost
of the Nagra, than anything related to the physical world...........

There is no conflict between our view that all amplifiers sound the
same when used within their design parameters and the use of a Krell
So would you say, Serge, that "within design parameters" - let's say an
8 ohm load in a small/medium room with a single driver speaker (can we
get any easier, I wonder?) a Krell would sound exactly the same as 40
amplifiers chosen at random out of the Richer Sounds catalogue? Sorry
to put you on the spot here, but it would be useful to get your views
on this. No malice intended! Andy

I could certainly suggest half a dozen at less than £200 from Richers
which would be likely to sound identical to my Krell - and to any
other competent amplifier.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

On 11 Feb 2006 05:59:19 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Andy Evans wrote:
Pinkerton advised:
find an amp which will drive them
adequately to the sound levels you enjoy. In your price bracket, they
do *not* all sound the same -

Would you say this is the same as saying
"amplifiers that sound different, sound different. Amplifiers that
sound the same sound the same"?
Much like "Yellow things are as yellow as other yellow things, but not
as yellow as red things"

Andy: I don't know why you waste your time. Pinkerton says all the time
that all competent amps sound the same, except when you corner him,
when he calls you a liar for holding him to account on account of the
much more expensive amp he brags of.

Just another typical Jute lie. I have *always* said that my Krell
sound just like any other competent amplifier. Your poorly designed
and crudely built rubbish is of course excluded from such a
description.

But this business about Pinkerton's Krell isn't merely about amps, it
is about psychology. Pinkerton belongs to the hunt, has told us he
thinks the anoraks should eat in the officers' mess, that his little
VW-base Audi is special, that his sport at college was fencing, that
his favourite watch is an IWC Ingenieur... There is much more of the
same; a pattern of a social climber is not difficult to distingush.

You would know all about social climbing Jute, but you'll never
actually *be* anything of note...................

BTW, my favourite watch is in fact the IWC Portuguese 5001, but that's
another matter.

Pinkerton's Krell isn't a case in sonics, it is a case study in an
inferiority complex, which should be right down your street as a
psychologist.

Unfortunately, Evans appears to be as incompetent a pshrink as he is
an engineer.................

The problem with being an electronics engineer, dull, and desirous of
being in good standing with one's peers, is that one is forced to
accept that one's amplifier cannot be better in any respect than the
next fellow's amplifier. They will all sound the same, so there can be
no difference.

Ah, but one of them may be of more elegant design, be cheaper to build
and more reliable than the other...........

Therefore Pinkerton must find another reason to make his
amplifier "special". That is his demand that it drive three ohm
speakers. Therefore he can justify an expensive Krell, at five times
the price of the common soundalike elcheapo high street amplifier Arny
Krueger advises. Problem of inferiority solved without breaching the
peer code of the "engineers".

Since I *own* 3-ohm speakers, that is hardly an unreasonable demand,
you Munchkin-minded Munchausen sufferer.

So Pinkerton is superior because his amp sounds the same but different
because it costs more. It's really very simple for someone like
Pinkerton who so constantly twists the truth into lies that he no
longer knows what the truth is.

No, I'm superior because I'm not you..................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

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. At that price level, a heavy-duty power supply is
unaffordable, and that certainly *can* cause audible differences among
amplifiers.

Just because *you* tell flat lies, and make lots of wild and totally
unsupported claims about the sound of passive components, don't assume
that everyone else does.

You might come to
the conclusion that there are some serious double standards going on in
this newsgroup. You may come to the conclusion that in practice even
hardened proponants of the scientific method will casually say "to my
ears this sounds better than that". You may then come to the same
conclusion as I did - that if people are doing one thing in theory and
another in practice, then it may be interesting to re-examine the
theory. Andy

Maybe you should just start using reliable and repeatable listening
tests, as I would expect any *competent* psychologist to do. After
all, you of all people *should* be well aware of the uselessness of
sighted comparisons. Clearly however, you prefer lies and misquotation
to any real examination of your flawed beliefs.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

Indeed, and I must say that I am greatly encouraged by the apparent
return of the 'old' Audiolab range, properly engineered with top
quality at a reasonable price as the design goal.

Who's doing that then?....

Derek and Phil got bored in their retirement?....
--
Tony Sayer

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

In article , Roderick
Stewart writes
In article , Bill Taylor
wrote:
While I agree in general about the "golden age" of radio, you are
allowing too much of a rosy glow to enhance the picture.

Most of the material broadcast would have been played off LP or
analogue tape; even then there were relatively few live broadcasts. In
order to get very good quality reception you had to live in the London
area; everywhere else was fed either by PO lines of variable quality
or rebroadcast feeds. This improved from the early 70s with the
introduction of the PCM distribution system.

My personal experience (and yes I did live in London at the time) was
that my own high speed tape recordings of Prom concerts sounded much
better than any of the published ones, which were either 3.75 in/sec mono
on quarter inch tape, or compact cassette, or gramophone records. They
were unquestionably the best quality available to me for home listening,
it wasn't necessary to tiptoe across the room while they were playing,
and you could hear a complete work without any interruption.

The best sound for home listening now seems to be CD, as radio has fallen
a long way behind, with no sign of even trying to catch up.

Rod.


Come on Roderick it isn't that bad, theres still FM and with a good
Tuner and live broadcast it can still be very good.

Yes I do agree with you re the digital offerings from the BBC very poor
show!. Have you seen the bitrates on German satellite?.

Pity the BBC didn't have a few more Tonemiester's and less management
bull****ters!.....
--
Tony Sayer

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

tony sayer wrote:

Come on Roderick it isn't that bad, theres still FM and with a good
Tuner and live broadcast it can still be very good.

You think there's a difference between live and recorded these days?
It's all digital until the FM transmitter.

--
Eiron

I have no spirit to play with you; your dearth of judgment renders you
tedious - Ben Jonson.

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

In article , Eiron
writes
tony sayer wrote:

Come on Roderick it isn't that bad, theres still FM and with a good
Tuner and live broadcast it can still be very good.

You think there's a difference between live and recorded these days?

Yes and there always will be, live are "as it happens" and that is a
good thing in my book with regards to musical enjoyment...

It's all digital until the FM transmitter.

Yes as it 'appens I do know that, but at much higher rates than those
used in DAB broadcast.

Nothing wrong with digital transmission but ONLY if the rates are
sufficient!...


--
Tony Sayer

Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)
 

In article , Eiron wrote:
tony sayer wrote:

Come on Roderick it isn't that bad, theres still FM and with a good
Tuner and live broadcast it can still be very good.

You think there's a difference between live and recorded these days?
It's all digital until the FM transmitter.

Broadcast programming is an unlimited mixture. Some of it is from
published recordings, occasionally old analogue ones from the archive,
and some is from the broadcasters' own recordings or from live events,
so it won't all be digital in origin. At its best it can be very good,
but if you want the best possible audio source, anything that has been
through an FM transmission system won't be a match for the best that can
be put on a CD.

Rod.