In article .com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
Jim - you are bringing this onto your territory, which may not be the
territory I am standing on.

You quote nothing I said here, and don't give any info to indentify what
you are talking about. Thus giving no help to anyone else who may be
wondering what on earth you are referring to.

I am arguing from the standpoint that 'assessment' in the broad sense
requires an open mind, flexibility, sympathy with the subject matter and
any human elements associated with it, observation and a willingness to
learn new skillsets.

But still have not actually dealt with the points I raised... :-)

It is up to me to judge what does or doesn't fit this profile.

....and it is up to others to decide to make what they choose to make of
your 'judgements' on others - when you make assertions about them, but
don't give any actual evidence.

You've spent many years examining evidence in detail, I've spent many
years profiling people. I don't have to see things from your perspective
and you don't have to see them from mine.

Agreed. Anyone can write anything they like *as an opinion*. The problems
arise when you present an assertion as if it were a 'fact', but then
simply fail to provide any actual evidence for it. I wasn't asking for
your 'perspective'. I was asking for your evidence.

Since you have removed the context, I will re-supply it, below:

Copy starts:

On 11 Feb in uk.rec.audio, Andy Evans
wrote:
Why would you need a reference for comparisons, since all amplifiers
sound the same?.

Pinkerton then unthinkingly said:: Who ever said that?

You did - you've just participated in a long thread which stated that
the scientific evidence was that ampliers couldn't be distinguished from
each other in DBTs. Jim gave you the references which you clearly
haven't had the courtesy to read, or maybe you don't want to read the
evidence so you can continue with your faith based assumptions that your
Krell sounds 'better' just because you want it to? That isn't science,
that's faith, and typical of the woolly self-centred rhetoric you use in
place of science.

Copy ends:

Thus you were claiming that Stewart said that "all amplifiers sound the
same".

When asked to supply an example of his saying this, you failed to do so.
Instead you respond with your opinions. I can't recall him saying what you
assert. IIRC he has also said he hasn't. Your opinions on 'assesment', etc,
may be interesting, but they don't tell us if Stewart ever said what you
claimed.

Since I have quoted the above posting by yourself, I should perhaps also
remind people (for the benefit of 'new readers') that what you said about
the references was also misleading. I gave a detailed explanation of that
previously, but can repeat it if anyone wishes.

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

In article , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:39:48 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:42:18 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

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?....

IAG (owners of Quad and Mission) bought Audiolab, and one of the
original designers (not Swift) is back in charge, unravelling the TAG
design philosophy and getting back to the original concept. At least,
that's what it says in the blurb......

That'll be scottie then won't it?.

No, he was mostly marketing.

No, he was the designer, Phil was the Marketeer!.

I'm talking about Nick Clarke, who's been
with the company through all its iterations.

Ah!, Saw on the www.audiolab.co.uk website that they were or are still
owned by IAG or is that no longer the case?....

What blurb where?.......

There's a booklet enclosed with this month's What Hi-Fi.

You don't read that Stewart, do you;!??????

--
Tony Sayer

On 14 Feb 2006 08:14:29 -0800, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

Jim - you are bringing this onto your territory, which may not be the
territory I am standing on. I am arguing from the standpoint that
'assessment' in the broad sense requires an open mind, flexibility,
sympathy with the subject matter and any human elements associated with
it, observation and a willingness to learn new skillsets.

Actually, it requires much more, such as analytical ability and
technical knowledge of the matter being assessed. BTW, your 'high
factor A' types don't generally *learn* new skillsets, they're largely
dilettantes with mere skims of knowledge. Hmmmm, that seems strangely
familiar...............

It is up to
me to judge what does or doesn't fit this profile. You've spent many
years examining evidence in detail, I've spent many years profiling
people. I don't have to see things from your perspective and you don't
have to see them from mine.

And, given your demonstrated preference for lies, distortions, ducking
and diving in lieu of a substantive argument, we don't have to pay any
attention to your drivel.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:26:25 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:39:48 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Stewart
Pinkerton writes
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:42:18 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

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?....

IAG (owners of Quad and Mission) bought Audiolab, and one of the
original designers (not Swift) is back in charge, unravelling the TAG
design philosophy and getting back to the original concept. At least,
that's what it says in the blurb......

That'll be scottie then won't it?.

No, he was mostly marketing.

No, he was the designer, Phil was the Marketeer!.

Bugger, I always get that one the wrong way round! :-(

I'm talking about Nick Clarke, who's been
with the company through all its iterations.

Ah!, Saw on the www.audiolab.co.uk website that they were or are still
owned by IAG or is that no longer the case?....

Yes, still part of IAG.

What blurb where?.......

There's a booklet enclosed with this month's What Hi-Fi.

You don't read that Stewart, do you;!??????

I knew I'd get jumped on for that, but it's handy for LCD TV reviews!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


There's a booklet enclosed with this month's What Hi-Fi.

You don't read that Stewart, do you;!??????

I knew I'd get jumped on for that, but it's handy for LCD TV reviews!



Guessed as much..... ;-)

Forget LCD TV and get a projector! Watching movies with an 80 inch diagonal
in your own home is a true *cinema* experience....

.....*if* you can live with the loss of sharpness....???

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:51:16 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


There's a booklet enclosed with this month's What Hi-Fi.

You don't read that Stewart, do you;!??????

I knew I'd get jumped on for that, but it's handy for LCD TV reviews!



Guessed as much..... ;-)

Forget LCD TV and get a projector! Watching movies with an 80 inch diagonal
in your own home is a true *cinema* experience....

....*if* you can live with the loss of sharpness....???

I was thinking of something in the 100-120 inch range, but not until
3-chip DLPs drop to less than £5k.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:51:16 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote


There's a booklet enclosed with this month's What Hi-Fi.

You don't read that Stewart, do you;!??????

I knew I'd get jumped on for that, but it's handy for LCD TV reviews!



Guessed as much..... ;-)

Forget LCD TV and get a projector! Watching movies with an 80 inch
diagonal
in your own home is a true *cinema* experience....

....*if* you can live with the loss of sharpness....???

I was thinking of something in the 100-120 inch range, but not until
3-chip DLPs drop to less than £5k.


Ah....

And a year after that they will be 2K or less, but fie were you I wouldn't
wait...

A year or two ago I grabbed a little Panasonic PT-AE100E projector
secondhand for 400 quid for my son (much more into movies than music) and he
straightway rigged it up with a 6 foot wide screen directly over his flat
screen 28 inch (?) Sony TV so that both screens were running concurrently.
This offered the choice of the big (softer) picture directly above the
small, pin-sharp TV picture. With a selection of movies it was an absolute,
immediate landslide in favour of the large screen - it was simply impossible
to watch the smaller image. (Big picture, big sound, big movie experience -
the Saving Private Ryan beach landing scene is/was *harrowing*, for
example!)

I grabbed another similar projector from eBay for us here and, since then,
we end virtually every evening with a trip to the cinema! Over 400 movies in
that time equating to a quid a go so far - fabulous VFM, considering the
stuff we have seen.

Another reason I personally wouldn't spend too much on a projector is the
enormous quality variations you will/would find between films. It is
incredible how poor some of them are - I believe the latest version of TWOTW
is a good (bad) example here, while films like Flying Daggers and Hero are
*absolutely* stunning. We watch a lot of 'back catalogue' (70s and earlier)
and have recently watched a string of superb Ozu slow burners which are B&W
(up to the last one) and 4:3 in any case, so an overkill expensive PJ would
be wasted to a degree.

Also, there are technicaland practical issues it might be worth resolving
before buying an expensive PJ; recordings from the telly are outrageous -
****ty, furry movies punctuated with pin-sharp ads that *etch* your eyeballs
if you haven't edited them out and lipsynch on an 80 inch diagonal is a
nightmare if you do try to edit them!

I'm currently trying MPEGs recorded from a WinTV card in the computer atm -
lipsynch is less of a problem (almost non existent) but I can't edit them
yet and the Pioneer DVDP won't fast forward/rewind them!! I wonder if anyone
knows of any software that will allow me to edit them, other than DVD Author
which doesn't work...??

Screen sharpness even with the cheap PJs we have is *hugely* enhanced with a
little more chair/screen distance at a slight loss of relative image size.
If these basic/budget Pana PJs have a fault it is that they are slightly too
'short throw' and I could definitely use one with a longer focal length -
the zoom facility is not great, more for 'fitting the image to the screen'
than altering image size much.

WE would be totally *lost* without ours now. I would finally add that the
oft-quoted Shiny Nigel reckons the image is as good as most of the
projectors they sell at his shop at much higher prices. I went down to see
one (can't remember the make - well-known name like Hitachi or summat) and
it wasn't anything like as good as I'm used to!!

Just a thought....

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Another reason I personally wouldn't spend too much on a projector is
the enormous quality variations you will/would find between films. It
is incredible how poor some of them are - I believe the latest version
of TWOTW is a good (bad) example here, while films like Flying Daggers
and Hero are *absolutely* stunning.

Assuming they are films, more likely to be the copying to DVD or whatever.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Another reason I personally wouldn't spend too much on a projector is
the enormous quality variations you will/would find between films. It
is incredible how poor some of them are - I believe the latest version
of TWOTW is a good (bad) example here, while films like Flying Daggers
and Hero are *absolutely* stunning.

Assuming they are films, more likely to be the copying to DVD or whatever.



I wasn't talking about copies - the varying standards I'm referring to are
on straightforward rentals. Movies from the TV are almost always poor
quality and lipsynch is a big problem. (Adverts from the telly, of course,
are razor sharp with much better colour....)

Out of interest, copies of pukka DVDs (should anyone ever bother to make
them.... ;-) are largely *indistinguishable* from the originals even on 4.7
GB disks and bit for bit 'perfect' on 8.5 Gig DL disks...

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Assuming they are films, more likely to be the copying to DVD or
whatever.

I wasn't talking about copies - the varying standards I'm referring to
are on straightforward rentals.

You think those *films* are mastered on DVD? And you get the master on
rental? ;-)

Movies from the TV are almost always poor quality and lipsynch is a big
problem.

Think you might find investing in a decent STB will help. Just because
they're digital doesn't mean they're all the same. Then there's the
problem with LCD and Plasma displays, sync wise...

Oh - and these days the makers of the film usually supply the highest
quality copy of it on DigiBeta to the broadcasters. Of course with old
films it may not be the case.

(Adverts from the telly, of course, are razor sharp with much
better colour....)

Apart from the lip sync, obviously. And they also ain't always perfect,
picture wise.

--
*Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?

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