|
|
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 23:29:52 GMT, wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:12:02 GMT, wrote: How would you know that an amp NOT YET BUILT would sound "****ty"? Because it was an SET. Can you give us the names of the last 10 SETs that you've listened to? I could, but then I'd have to kill you. Besides, one POS amp is enough, or are you telling me that there are SET amps that can play at normal levels without massive distortion? OK, how about even one SET that you have sampled? It would be nice to know the associated gear (especially speakers) and what kind of music you listened to. Quoting from any on-the-spot notes that you made would be nice, but you can use your memory if you'd like. It would be nice to hear what specifically bothered you about the sound. BTW, are you telling me that if I listened to a single SS amp, like, say a Phase Linear amp, I'd be able to condemn the whole species? Because that's what you seem to be saying, that one can extrapolate from a single example. The only SET I ever heard was one that a friend had built from a kit. This was over 12 years ago. At the time I compare it to a 40 WPC HK730, which easily sounded better to me. This guy was a very big tube and LP advocate and had no use whatsoever fo SS, and that's his perogative. It's simply not what I care about. You seem to forget that it's about accuracy for me. Knowing that a device is generating audible distortion automatically disqualifies it from being considered for anything other than a doorstop/ room heater. It's bad enough that speakers have as much distortion as they do, I don't want another device that would effectively double it. That's why I firmly believe that the real high end that people ought to be pursuing is loudspeakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing makes more improvement to an audio system than upgrading speaker performance, either by tuning the room passively or through active means, or some combination. The single biggest producer of distortion in an audio system is coming from the speakers and the only methods I'm aware of for changing that are going to come from new materials, sensors, more drivers, or auto EQ built into the speakers, ala the NHT's that were favorably reviewed in SP a while ago. There's no point for me to bother with anything else, since it can't improve the overall accuracy of the system. Show me one reasonably priced (under $1000.00) SET amp that can produce 100+ watts and not have audible distortion, and I'll consider it for a listen. |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 11:30:45 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: So not only is Jute *grossly* lying about the number of posts I made, he fails to note that he himself made significantly more - also his tend to be *much* more verbose than mine You're kidding! I've never noticed that. :-) |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
You said to NYOB:
Before you so stupidly try to convince us Andre is merely copying out what he found in a book, please provide evidence to support your alegations. From which book did Andre copy his info from? Stupidity is only one part of it. This insolent loudmouth learnt his huckster manners in his time as a hifi salesman. Permit me to quote myself: Quote #! 1 " He repeats his favourite gambit at least once a week: The "all the rest of the researchers " (meaning "me and all the rest"? Black humour?) and "manufacturers" are crazy about ABX. He polled " all the manufacturers" in his hifi shop sales days and asked "all the rest" of the researchers ie those who didn/t show him the door if they use ABX weekly daily or every minute of their life. And he offers this fool-proof statistical miracle to everyone free of charge. He rests his case. Quote #2 NYOB has a revelation for the world of medicine: I haven't participated in any medical ABX testing either, but I don't want any new meds that weren't. Regretfully he ommitted the full details of his epoch-making discovery. Presumably it goes something like this: First researcher:"This guy has bacterial endocarditis. If he doesn't get penicillin he's sure to die" 2nd researcher: "But I got funded to find out if this new drug works. Let's give him one week of penicillin and then one week of my drug. If at the end of two weeks he's still alive we'll give him one or the other and ask him which one was it most like Penicillin or my new one" "Great. Now we're really making waves" This, and I'm weighing my words, functional illiterate promises to correct blind fate's error. If he refuses any medication that was not ABX tested he will make good a DNA mistake. Because a medication tested by ABX does not exist. Ludovic Mirabel Patrick Turner wrote: wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com... WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE In the latter part of 2004, at the request of leading members, I started a major project called KISS on rec.audio.tubes (RAT). Translation: Jute said he was going to start a project called KISS so that he could perhaps impress some of the SET lovers with yet another example of a ****ty sounding amp. Unfortunately for you, SET amps are not necessarily ****ty sounding. At rec.audio.tubes, ppl are expected to be positively interestested in tube craft, rather than have a destructive agenda. Stewart Pinkerton, aka Oinkerton the Pig, is like somebody who would join in discussions at rec.radio.amateur.homebrew by trying to tell all the assembled hobbyists and other commercial interested folks there that they are a stupid bunch of fools because they dare to build their own radio gear when of course it is easier and more effective to use the Internet to transfer information. Pinkerton arrived and announced he would deconstruct the project. Translation: Jute took somebody else's design from a book he read and claimed it was his own and when Stewart saw what a piece of crap it was said he could build a similarly simple SS amp. What does onw call one's own amp that one builds? One calls it one's own. It may be almost identical to other designs, but it is the amp that Andre built, and Andre has a right to say it is his, so ppl know that, and know the differences between it and anyone else's design. Pinkerton failed to establish why Andre's amp was a piece of crap, and failed quite miserably to build anything better, and durung the process rightly earned his nickname as Oinkerton, because his attidude was the same as a person insisting he sell pork in a synogogue. Between the beginning of October 2004 and the middle of February 2006 he sent 4607 messages to RAT, a labour conservatively estimated to have taken him 767 hours, or more than a quarter of his working hours in the same period, the major part of his free time. Based on teh math of someone with not only way to much free time, but someone who apparently can't type very fast. Andre simply points out the fact that Oinkerton posted a pile of many unwanted, unappreciated and idiotic posts at rec.audio.tubes. I don't know if Oinkerton posted 46, 460, 4,600 times. But he did post a great amount of ****, none of which earned him the slightest amount of respect amounf the few here with a real interest in tube craft of amoung the closit solderers who build home brew solid state gear. He told us that the purpose was to expose my ignorance and prevent others following in my footsteps. Tranlation: Stewart was going to expose Jute's ignorance and try to prevent others from following in Jute's footsteps. But Oinkerton's ignorance is far worse, and anyone following in his footsteps will get bogged and smelly so much faster than if you followed in Andre's steps. His 4607 posts were all abusive. Unlike Jute's posts which are complete crap. Oinkerton is anti tubecraft, Andre is pro-tubecraft. Thius is a tube craft group; rec.audio.tubes is its title. if you cannot or will not contribute positively to tube craft then **** off. Only one, considered below, was electronically specific enough for me to consider comparing it to what I had published. IOW, it was the only one simpleenough for you to understand. As the result of Pinkerton's 4607 posts, not a single line of the booklength KISS materials was altered, not a single fact was altered, not a single schematic was altered in the slightest. IOW, Jute didn't change a thing bcause he didn't have another book to copy from. Jute's circuit works. There was no reason for him to change anything. Before you so stupidly try to convince us Andre is merely copying out what he found in a book, please provide evidence to support your alegations. From which book did Andre copy his info from? As the result of Pinkerton's 4607 posts, no party interested in the KISS project in the beginning dropped out, and no one who became interested during its course was deterred in the slightest. IOW, nobody built the KISS amp, not even Jute. Pinkerton's 4607 vicious posts gave him great satisfaction, according to him, but had no other result whatsoever (except to make Pinkerton's name a byword for barbaric insensitivity and foul manners). IOW, Jute was shown for the incompetent boob that everybody already knew he was. Not correct. Oinkerton admitted before ceasing to post at rec.audio tubes for some months that he hadn't built the supposedly simple SS amp he had designed. He had no intention to build a working sample, test it honestly, post the results, and do so all without posting personally inflamatatory comments about the 300B amp. To anyone reading r.a.t who has an IQ above 50, Oinkerton seems to come across as a complete jerk. Andre may be wordy, and long winded, but he's fundementally here for the tubes. He has a flair for demolishing ppl like Oinkerton, something Oinkerton begs for. Unfortunately, the argy bargy between the two doesn't look good to the fragiles who come here to talk tubes, they go away, seeking safer refuges where their opinions won't be attacked by jerks like Oinkerton. Oinkerton's presence s has degraded what might otherwise be a good discussion group. Despite this time of year being cool in the northern hemisphre with ppl mainly locked indoors with their hobbies at least at night, hardly anyone is building gear and discussing the experiences here like they used to. One reaon is that Oinketon and his sympathisers are too everpresent. Oinkerton would be immediately banned, filtered out, kill filed in any moderated group. In all Pinkerton's 4607 posts counted here, he did not once analyze the circuit of the amp he objected to while it stood for more than a year on public view. Something you couldn't possibly know. By contrast to Pinkerton's vicious and loud slackness, Patrick Turner analyzed the circuit and made suggestions which were incorporated, and John Byrns made another important suggestion which we shall shortly discuss and then incorporate because I have already tested it. After how long? A year? Two? And what exactly is your analysis? Just what informative and useful point are you trying to make? From Pinkerton all this while, zero. In short, Pinkerton's claim of my ignorance is a sham, an excuse for him to indulge his malicious urge to bring pain to everyone else, 4607 times in 15 months on a single newsgroup. IOW Stewart designed and built his KISS Ass amp and then waited for Jute to build his. Finally he posted a picture of the amp which was shown to have been taken just a few days ago and not at the time Jute claims he built it. By the way McCoy I just won $5000.00 betting that you would launch yet another tirade against Stewart. But you made yourself look like a complete loser. Feel welcome to collect the 5 grand. Exactly what contributions to tube craft are you going to make? Patrick Turner. |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:49:02 GMT, wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 23:29:52 GMT, wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:12:02 GMT, wrote: How would you know that an amp NOT YET BUILT would sound "****ty"? Because it was an SET. Can you give us the names of the last 10 SETs that you've listened to? I could, but then I'd have to kill you. Besides, one POS amp is enough, or are you telling me that there are SET amps that can play at normal levels without massive distortion? OK, how about even one SET that you have sampled? It would be nice to know the associated gear (especially speakers) and what kind of music you listened to. Quoting from any on-the-spot notes that you made would be nice, but you can use your memory if you'd like. It would be nice to hear what specifically bothered you about the sound. BTW, are you telling me that if I listened to a single SS amp, like, say a Phase Linear amp, I'd be able to condemn the whole species? Because that's what you seem to be saying, that one can extrapolate from a single example. The only SET I ever heard was one that a friend had built from a kit. This was over 12 years ago. At the time I compare it to a 40 WPC HK730, which easily sounded better to me. I guess, since you haven't bothered to listen to any commercial SETs, that we can pretty much disregard your comments about how SETs sound. This guy was a very big tube and LP advocate and had no use whatsoever fo SS, and that's his perogative. It's simply not what I care about. And that doesn't really even say anything about the quality of his build, the kind of kit it was, the type of tubes that were used, etc. In fact, you can't even say what kind of speakers were being used. You seem to forget that it's about accuracy for me. Knowing that a device is generating audible distortion automatically disqualifies it from being considered for anything other than a doorstop/ room heater. Ahhh, it's the "knowing". Sort of a placebo effect, eh? It's bad enough that speakers have as much distortion as they do, I don't want another device that would effectively double it. That's why I firmly believe that the real high end that people ought to be pursuing is loudspeakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing makes more improvement to an audio system than upgrading speaker performance, either by tuning the room passively or through active means, or some combination. The single biggest producer of distortion in an audio system is coming from the speakers and the only methods I'm aware of for changing that are going to come from new materials, sensors, more drivers, or auto EQ built into the speakers, ala the NHT's that were favorably reviewed in SP a while ago. There's no point for me to bother with anything else, since it can't improve the overall accuracy of the system. Then you shouldn't comment on how good or bad they are, since you're not willing to even bother evaluating them (SETs) in person. Show me one reasonably priced (under $1000.00) SET amp that can produce 100+ watts and not have audible distortion, and I'll consider it for a listen. Why would you need 100+ watts? What is it about those words that defines hi-fi for you? |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:06:45 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Stewèd Pukerton said: participation in [the Special Olympics] does not imply brain damage - were you hoping to qualify just on that account? For anybody who's unfamiliar with Stewie's routines, this is a coded message that means he's just cracked open a bottle of whiskeeey. I never touch any spirit with an 'e' in it............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
wrote in message
ink.net "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:12:02 GMT, wrote: How would you know that an amp NOT YET BUILT would sound "****ty"? Because it was an SET. Can you give us the names of the last 10 SETs that you've listened to? I could, but then I'd have to kill you. Besides, one POS amp is enough, or are you telling me that there are SET amps that can play at normal levels without massive distortion? I probably listened to at least 10 SETs at HE2005. The SET rooms at HE2005 were pretty much the same - there was an altar-like area between the speakers that was occupied by a glowing SET. The glow of the tubes was especially apparent. The glowing was almost as apparent as the gritty sound. I still remember walking into one room, glancing about and noticing the glowing apparition on the floor. However I didn't hear the gritty sound of a SET. I looked again and noticed that the tubes were in pairs. I had found the Manley room and the tubed power amps were p-p, and probably even with loop feedback. |
WHY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE IS UNRELIABLE: 1. THE STATISTICS OF BULLSHIT
"Arny Krueger" wrote snip crossposted ******** I probably listened to at least 10 SETs at HE2005. The SET rooms at HE2005 were pretty much the same - there was an altar-like area between the speakers that was occupied by a glowing SET. The glow of the tubes was especially apparent. The glowing was almost as apparent as the gritty sound. I still remember walking into one room, glancing about and noticing the glowing apparition on the floor. However I didn't hear the gritty sound of a SET. I looked again and noticed that the tubes were in pairs. I had found the Manley room and the tubed power amps were p-p, and probably even with loop feedback. Tell me Arny - why do I not believe a single word of that....??? |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:17:24 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:06:45 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Stewèd Pukerton said: participation in [the Special Olympics] does not imply brain damage - were you hoping to qualify just on that account? For anybody who's unfamiliar with Stewie's routines, this is a coded message that means he's just cracked open a bottle of whiskeeey. I never touch any spirit with an 'e' in it............. That's a shame because a great tequila is a pleasure to drink. This is probably an old-world bias on your part. You're missing out on a great pleasure. |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:17:24 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:06:45 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Stewèd Pukerton said: participation in [the Special Olympics] does not imply brain damage - were you hoping to qualify just on that account? For anybody who's unfamiliar with Stewie's routines, this is a coded message that means he's just cracked open a bottle of whiskeeey. I never touch any spirit with an 'e' in it............. That's a shame because a great tequila is a pleasure to drink. This is probably an old-world bias on your part. You're missing out on a great pleasure. Don't tell him that ... some are predicting another agave shortage. http://www.prophetsplace.com/agave.html ScottW |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 11:01:46 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:17:24 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:06:45 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Stewèd Pukerton said: participation in [the Special Olympics] does not imply brain damage - were you hoping to qualify just on that account? For anybody who's unfamiliar with Stewie's routines, this is a coded message that means he's just cracked open a bottle of whiskeeey. I never touch any spirit with an 'e' in it............. That's a shame because a great tequila is a pleasure to drink. This is probably an old-world bias on your part. You're missing out on a great pleasure. Rats! I forgot tequila. :-( Having worked in Tucson Arizona for a couple of years, I have a certain notoriety back home for my deadly Margaritas. People happily knock back a large beaker of that tasty refreshing citrus drink at a summer barbie, and then can't understand why their legs don't work properly anymore... :-) OTOH, sorry, tequila on its own tastes disgusting, hence the salt and lime ritual. As ever, YMMV. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 11:01:46 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:17:24 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:06:45 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Stewèd Pukerton said: participation in [the Special Olympics] does not imply brain damage - were you hoping to qualify just on that account? For anybody who's unfamiliar with Stewie's routines, this is a coded message that means he's just cracked open a bottle of whiskeeey. I never touch any spirit with an 'e' in it............. That's a shame because a great tequila is a pleasure to drink. This is probably an old-world bias on your part. You're missing out on a great pleasure. Rats! I forgot tequila. :-( Having worked in Tucson Arizona for a couple of years, I have a certain notoriety back home for my deadly Margaritas. People happily knock back a large beaker of that tasty refreshing citrus drink at a summer barbie, and then can't understand why their legs don't work properly anymore... :-) OTOH, sorry, tequila on its own tastes disgusting, hence the salt and lime ritual. As ever, YMMV. Not all tequila..here's a useful list of 100% agave... wasting these in a margarita is a sin....however even salt and lime can't redeem scotch. Obviously those people have never been given the pleasure of a fine Kentucky bourbon which at least has the decency of going well with coke if you wish to retain the function of your legs :) ScottW |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
Andre Jute wrote: WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE In the latter part of 2004, at the request of leading members, I started a major project called KISS on rec.audio.tubes (RAT). Pinkerton arrived and announced he would deconstruct the project. Between the beginning of October 2004 and the middle of February 2006 he sent 4607 messages to RAT, a labour conservatively estimated to have taken him 767 hours, or more than a quarter of his working hours in the same period, the major part of his free time. He told us that the purpose was to expose my ignorance and prevent others following in my footsteps. His 4607 posts were all abusive. Only one, considered below, was electronically specific enough for me to consider comparing it to what I had published. As the result of Pinkerton's 4607 posts, not a single line of the booklength KISS materials was altered, not a single fact was altered, not a single schematic was altered in the slightest. As the result of Pinkerton's 4607 posts, no party interested in the KISS project in the beginning dropped out, and no one who became interested during its course was deterred in the slightest. Pinkerton's 4607 vicious posts gave him great satisfaction, according to him, but had no other result whatsoever (except to make Pinkerton's name a byword for barbaric insensitivity and foul manners). In all Pinkerton's 4607 posts counted here, he did not once analyze the circuit of the amp he objected to while it stood for more than a year on public view. By contrast to Pinkerton's vicious and loud slackness, Patrick Turner analyzed the circuit and made suggestions which were incorporated, and John Byrns made another important suggestion which we shall shortly discuss and then incorporate because I have already tested it. From Pinkerton all this while, zero. In short, Pinkerton's claim of my ignorance is a sham, an excuse for him to indulge his malicious urge to bring pain to everyone else, 4607 times in 15 months on a single newsgroup. Andre Jute Part of a series of articles: WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE 1. BACKGROUND 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE 3. PINKERTON'S IGNORANCE OF THE BASICS 4. PINKERTON LIES ON PROFESSIONAL MATTERS FOR PERSONAL REASONS 5. CONCLUSION Stewart Pinkerton writes to offer his own message count: Click on the above links, use advanced search on author, restrict groups to rec.audio.tubes and dates from 1 October 2004 to current date, and you get the following results: Andre Jute - 662 Stewart Pinkerton - 602 I'm happy to accept Pinkerton's count. But we should note that Jute was presenting the major KISS project, and yet Pinkerton sent 90 per cent as many posts as Jute did. This alone is indicative of Pinkerton maliciously trying to take over Jute's project. That Pinkerton waged a pointless flame war for its own sake is indicated by Jute's summary: "As the result of Pinkerton's 602 posts, not a single line of the booklength KISS materials was altered, not a single fact was altered, not a single schematic was altered in the slightest." After 111 posts and 100 hours on public view, the revised count was the only argument offered in this analysis of Pinkerton's malice. The other facts stand unchallenged. Andre Jute |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
But we should note that Jute was presenting the major KISS project,
Mr. McCoy: As noted and as is becoming more and more clear as even your "Timmies" and your various and sundry other acolytes appear to be abandoning you: You write only for yourself. Drop the "we" crap. Lest you think otherwise, I write only for myself as well... And your "major " project just does also appear to happen to be a loose system of fantasies supported by anecdotes of doubtful veracity. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Stewèd Pukerton said: participation in [the Special Olympics] does not imply brain damage - were you hoping to qualify just on that account? For anybody who's unfamiliar with Stewie's routines, this is a coded message that means he's just cracked open a bottle of whiskeeey. Time to drown out his sobrieeety. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 13:44:44 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 11:01:46 -0600, dave weil wrote: On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:17:24 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:06:45 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Stewèd Pukerton said: participation in [the Special Olympics] does not imply brain damage - were you hoping to qualify just on that account? For anybody who's unfamiliar with Stewie's routines, this is a coded message that means he's just cracked open a bottle of whiskeeey. I never touch any spirit with an 'e' in it............. That's a shame because a great tequila is a pleasure to drink. This is probably an old-world bias on your part. You're missing out on a great pleasure. Rats! I forgot tequila. :-( Having worked in Tucson Arizona for a couple of years, I have a certain notoriety back home for my deadly Margaritas. People happily knock back a large beaker of that tasty refreshing citrus drink at a summer barbie, and then can't understand why their legs don't work properly anymore... :-) OTOH, sorry, tequila on its own tastes disgusting, hence the salt and lime ritual. As ever, YMMV. Not all tequila..here's a useful list of 100% agave... wasting these in a margarita is a sin....however even salt and lime can't redeem scotch. Indeed not - a fine single malt Scotch should only be served with more of the same - or a dash of highland spring water. Obviously those people have never been given the pleasure of a fine Kentucky bourbon which at least has the decency of going well with coke if you wish to retain the function of your legs :) Any drink that goes well with Coke can be instantly dismissed... Military intelligence = fine Kentucky Bourbon -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
On 5 Mar 2006 17:45:32 -0800, " wrote:
But we should note that Jute was presenting the major KISS project, Mr. McCoy: As noted and as is becoming more and more clear as even your "Timmies" and your various and sundry other acolytes appear to be abandoning you: You write only for yourself. Drop the "we" crap. Lest you think otherwise, I write only for myself as well... And your "major " project just does also appear to happen to be a loose system of fantasies supported by anecdotes of doubtful veracity. Interesting how fast Jute dropped his claim of 4607 posts from me, and accepted the true number of 602. Also interesting (and entirely predictable) that he assumes that it's all about him - these were my *total* posts to RAT over an 18 month period. An average of one post a day, and included my own 'major KISASS project', which is every bit as substantial as Jute's endless turgid prose surrounding a very simple amplifier. Shame that he can't apply the same KISS principle to the 'design' articles, which could have been wrapped up in a couple of hundred lines, rather than the endless thousands of lines of purple prose, wild assertions and self-aggrandisement that he's taken to get halfway through the exercise to date. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... said: If one adds the line "In my opinion", or "just speaking for myself" , one is almost certain to be attacked for saying that by Arny Krueger. Oh well, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Actually, that's the best way to keep Arny from bothering with you at all. It's when people say things like SET's are great sounding amps. Or CD players have gigantic differences in sound quality, that will get his attention. See: http://groups.google.nl/group/rec.au...5cb7e03aa27c90 Quote: __________________________________________________ ____________ Me: However, those are just my observations. Arny: Which you'll repeat early and often in the hope that they will convince... __________________________________________________ ____________ End Quote I think that you know as well as anybody, that Stewart, while not exactly shy about expressing his opinions, (as if that were strange around here) is in fact a well qualified EE. Quote: __________________________________________________ ____________ Me: Pinkerton gets not nearly as much attacked as Arny, and to be honest, I think that Pinkerton is a lot better versed in electronics on a component level. Arny: I don't think you're qualified to judge either of us, Sander. Me: That, and he has a kind of humour that I can appreciate. Arny: You obviously tolerate racist comments well. __________________________________________________ ____________ End Quote I was thinking of people without quite so much history as the 2 of you have, plus you were not discussing audio in that post. |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:49:02 GMT, wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 23:29:52 GMT, wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message m... On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:12:02 GMT, wrote: How would you know that an amp NOT YET BUILT would sound "****ty"? Because it was an SET. Can you give us the names of the last 10 SETs that you've listened to? I could, but then I'd have to kill you. Besides, one POS amp is enough, or are you telling me that there are SET amps that can play at normal levels without massive distortion? OK, how about even one SET that you have sampled? It would be nice to know the associated gear (especially speakers) and what kind of music you listened to. Quoting from any on-the-spot notes that you made would be nice, but you can use your memory if you'd like. It would be nice to hear what specifically bothered you about the sound. BTW, are you telling me that if I listened to a single SS amp, like, say a Phase Linear amp, I'd be able to condemn the whole species? Because that's what you seem to be saying, that one can extrapolate from a single example. The only SET I ever heard was one that a friend had built from a kit. This was over 12 years ago. At the time I compare it to a 40 WPC HK730, which easily sounded better to me. I guess, since you haven't bothered to listen to any commercial SETs, that we can pretty much disregard your comments about how SETs sound. You mean there has been a sudden upswing in the technology and theya re not distortion generators anymore? I'm pretty sure the people who are going to buy an SET would never be disuaded by the fact that they are getting into double digit distortion. This guy was a very big tube and LP advocate and had no use whatsoever fo SS, and that's his perogative. It's simply not what I care about. And that doesn't really even say anything about the quality of his build, the kind of kit it was, the type of tubes that were used, etc. In fact, you can't even say what kind of speakers were being used. They were like mine, his own design and very good. He's the same guy that sold me the Accustat amp. You seem to forget that it's about accuracy for me. Knowing that a device is generating audible distortion automatically disqualifies it from being considered for anything other than a doorstop/ room heater. Ahhh, it's the "knowing". Sort of a placebo effect, eh? No, distortion in SET's is very real. It's bad enough that speakers have as much distortion as they do, I don't want another device that would effectively double it. That's why I firmly believe that the real high end that people ought to be pursuing is loudspeakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing makes more improvement to an audio system than upgrading speaker performance, either by tuning the room passively or through active means, or some combination. The single biggest producer of distortion in an audio system is coming from the speakers and the only methods I'm aware of for changing that are going to come from new materials, sensors, more drivers, or auto EQ built into the speakers, ala the NHT's that were favorably reviewed in SP a while ago. There's no point for me to bother with anything else, since it can't improve the overall accuracy of the system. Then you shouldn't comment on how good or bad they are, since you're not willing to even bother evaluating them (SETs) in person. The fact that they generate distortion is a known fact, I'm not allowed to state the known? I'm not willing to evaluate things that are unquestionably not going to improve my system. An SET could never drive my speakers to an acceptable level anyway. Show me one reasonably priced (under $1000.00) SET amp that can produce 100+ watts and not have audible distortion, and I'll consider it for a listen. Why would you need 100+ watts? What is it about those words that defines hi-fi for you? Live levels. You can't approach that in most rooms with less than that unless you have horns. |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 5 Mar 2006 17:45:32 -0800, " wrote: But we should note that Jute was presenting the major KISS project, Mr. McCoy: As noted and as is becoming more and more clear as even your "Timmies" and your various and sundry other acolytes appear to be abandoning you: You write only for yourself. Drop the "we" crap. Lest you think otherwise, I write only for myself as well... And your "major " project just does also appear to happen to be a loose system of fantasies supported by anecdotes of doubtful veracity. Interesting how fast Jute dropped his claim of 4607 posts from me, and accepted the true number of 602. Also interesting (and entirely predictable) that he assumes that it's all about him - these were my *total* posts to RAT over an 18 month period. An average of one post a day, and included my own 'major KISASS project', which is every bit as substantial as Jute's endless turgid prose surrounding a very simple amplifier. I won another $500.00 for predicting that he would back off his first number. I got word of winning the bet while I was giving shooting lessons to the F.B.I. right after a session of tuning up my car to compete in the Baja endurance classic. :-) Shame that he can't apply the same KISS principle to the 'design' articles, which could have been wrapped up in a couple of hundred lines, rather than the endless thousands of lines of purple prose, wild assertions and self-aggrandisement that he's taken to get halfway through the exercise to date. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 07:18:53 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: Any drink that goes well with Coke can be instantly dismissed... And yet you're willing to drink something with a half-assed lemonade and melted orange bonbons. |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
dave weil wrote: On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 07:18:53 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Any drink that goes well with Coke can be instantly dismissed... And yet you're willing to drink something with a half-assed lemonade and melted orange bonbons. Zero taste, zero culture. Proves once again that one may safely leave sticky cocktails to "engineers" like plumbers, carpenters, carpetlayers, garbage disposers, nightsoil removers, spam postmen, suchlike. |
Who tells "engineers" what to drink?
Andre Jute wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 07:18:53 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Any drink that goes well with Coke can be instantly dismissed... And yet you're willing to drink something with a half-assed lemonade and melted orange bonbons. Zero taste, zero culture. Proves once again that one may safely leave sticky cocktails to "engineers" like plumbers, carpenters, carpetlayers, garbage disposers, nightsoil removers, spam postmen, suchlike. And their Audi-driving wives, of course, who tell them to drink "something with a half-assed lemonade and melted orange bonbons". Hee-hee! |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
Proves once again that one may safely leave sticky cocktails to
"engineers" like plumbers, carpenters, carpetlayers, garbage disposers, nightsoil removers, spam postmen, suchlike. Not to mention pretentious twits who wouldn't know a single-malt from a blend, or good bourbon from battery-acid... Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
In article , Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: Interesting how fast Jute dropped his claim of 4607 posts from me, and accepted the true number of 602. Also interesting (and entirely predictable) that he assumes that it's all about him - these were my *total* posts to RAT over an 18 month period. An average of one post a day, and included my own 'major KISASS project', which is every bit as substantial as Jute's endless turgid prose surrounding a very simple amplifier. "Turgid" prose aside, whatever that may be, how can you claim your "project" is anywhere near as "substantial" as Andre's when Andre actually built his project, while you built nothing? Regards, John Byrns Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On 6 Mar 2006 08:30:25 -0800, " wrote:
Proves once again that one may safely leave sticky cocktails to "engineers" like plumbers, carpenters, carpetlayers, garbage disposers, nightsoil removers, spam postmen, suchlike. Not to mention pretentious twits who wouldn't know a single-malt from a blend, or good bourbon from battery-acid... Really? You know anyone like that? If bourbon's so great, why does no one drink it 'straight up'? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Who tells "engineers" what to drink?
On 6 Mar 2006 08:11:07 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote: dave weil wrote: On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 07:18:53 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Any drink that goes well with Coke can be instantly dismissed... And yet you're willing to drink something with a half-assed lemonade and melted orange bonbons. ? Zero taste, zero culture. Who, Jute? Couldn't argue with that! Proves once again that one may safely leave sticky cocktails to "engineers" like plumbers, carpenters, carpetlayers, garbage disposers, nightsoil removers, spam postmen, suchlike. And their Audi-driving wives, of course, who tell them to drink "something with a half-assed lemonade and melted orange bonbons". Mine drinks mostly white wine, and certainly doesn't tell *me* what to drink. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Who tells "engineers" what to drink?
Drunkie said: Mine drinks mostly white wine, and certainly doesn't tell *me* what to drink. And if anybody is wondering why, the records are being kept by the police and the hospital. |
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 2. THE STATISTICS OF MALICE
|
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
In article , patent3
@dircon.co.uk says... On 6 Mar 2006 08:30:25 -0800, " wrote: Proves once again that one may safely leave sticky cocktails to "engineers" like plumbers, carpenters, carpetlayers, garbage disposers, nightsoil removers, spam postmen, suchlike. Not to mention pretentious twits who wouldn't know a single-malt from a blend, or good bourbon from battery-acid... Really? You know anyone like that? If bourbon's so great, why does no one drink it 'straight up'? That used to be my opinion of bourbon, but recently I started exploring some of the better products (avaiable to me) and found that there are some that I enjoy neat (Woodford Reserve, Knob Creek). That said, I still prefer a good single malt, and I admit that I've never tasted a tequila that didn't induce an instant gag reflex. Probably that's because I've never tried anything beyond the typical rotgut that *needs* to be hidden behind lime & salt. The pricier tequilas cost more than a decent malt whisky around here, so up to this point in time I haven't bothered trying any of them. Maybe one day... -- Bill |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 17:10:42 +0000 (UTC), in rec.audio.opinion you
wrote: On 6 Mar 2006 08:30:25 -0800, " wrote: Proves once again that one may safely leave sticky cocktails to "engineers" like plumbers, carpenters, carpetlayers, garbage disposers, nightsoil removers, spam postmen, suchlike. Not to mention pretentious twits who wouldn't know a single-malt from a blend, or good bourbon from battery-acid... Really? You know anyone like that? If bourbon's so great, why does no one drink it 'straight up'? Because some actually do. Especially some of the more refined products like Woodford Reserve or Knob Creek. It's becoming a more acceptable after dinner cognac-type drink, just like single-malts are. I'm not a bourbon fan though. Too sweet for my tastes. I *will* occasionally have a good bourbon as described but it's rare. I'm a scotch guy pretty much down the line and I turn up my nose at those contrived whiskys like Canadian Club and Crown Royal. Also, I'm on record as saying that I prefer a single *small* cube of ice in my single-malt. I like it because a single malt is best enjoyed (IMO) with just a touch of water, which cuts the initial numbing burning alcohol hit that interferes with the ability to taste the subtleies (sp?) of the flavor profile. Even Michael Jackson (not Jacko) claims that you get the best experience that way, although he, like you, talks about a tiny bit of highland branch water (he says that it actually releases the locked-in aroma). I just find that a little ice cube accomplishes the same thing and I'm not so anal that I'd find that using local water detracts from the experience. The ice quickly melts to just about the right amount of water and it slightly cools the liquid, which I find appealing. It doesn't chill it, which I WOULDN'T like at all and it doesn't unduly dilute the beverage. And finally, I have no problem drinking a "blended" single malt like Famous Grouse. I find it to offer a modicum of single-malt pleasure at about half the cost. I guess it's the 1/16th Scottish in me. Unless I'm forced to drink them by circumstances, I avoid run-of-the-mill blended scotches like Chivas and Dewars and J&B. And those, I'll just drink on the rocks since there's not much there to mess up with water. And no, I don't bother with such lightweights as Dalwhinnie. Give me something bold like Talisker or Lagavulin or something elegant and refined like Oban any day. I certainly won't pass up the "Rolls-Royce of SMs", the various Macallans either. The 21 is a wonderful scotch...just a bit overprised for my tastes. The 12 is acceptable but it doesn't invoke the senses like the others I've named. Damn, I'm thirsty. Shame that I have to work tonight... |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
YIKES!
Any good distilled spirit should be taken neat. And a very good bourbon is all of that. If you want to try for yourself, Evan Williams and/or Ezra Brooks will stand up to any blended scotch, certainly, and (here) at a far lower cost, of course.... especially against swill like the various Jonney Walkers of the world. Knob Hill makes a very nice single-barrel bourbon, Makers Mark has several good ones and there are various others. Clearly you are in the Jim Beam/Wild Turkey/Jack Daniels crap-for-export orbit, so your opinion is well justified if that is your universe-of-choice. Now, of course Gin and Vodka are alcohol delivery systems and fall outside the range of 'good'... being not much more than neutral spirits with either flavor added (gin) or not (vodka). But there are differences in quality having to do with the distillation process as noted below. Oh, as an aside: "flavored" vodkas are not fit for anything more than fire-starting. The mark of very good spirits beyond the taste is the fact that there is no nasty 'head' the next day... if one indulges to excess. Careful distillation removes nearly all the keytones and thereby the nasty part of the hangover that goes with them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:43:40 -0800, Bill Riel wrote:
The pricier tequilas cost more than a decent malt whisky around here, so up to this point in time I haven't bothered trying any of them. Maybe one day... If you want a nice "sippin' tequila" for a somewhat reasonable price, you should try Patron Silver. It's not *that* much more expensive than the average tequila and it's very smooth and pleasant. |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
In article , dweil2
@bellsouth.net says... On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 09:43:40 -0800, Bill Riel wrote: The pricier tequilas cost more than a decent malt whisky around here, so up to this point in time I haven't bothered trying any of them. Maybe one day... If you want a nice "sippin' tequila" for a somewhat reasonable price, you should try Patron Silver. It's not *that* much more expensive than the average tequila and it's very smooth and pleasant. Thanks for the recomendation - I'll take a look for that. -- Bill |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
In article , Dave weil wrote:
And finally, I have no problem drinking a "blended" single malt like Famous Grouse. I find it to offer a modicum of single-malt pleasure at about half the cost. I guess it's the 1/16th Scottish in me. Unless I'm forced to drink them by circumstances, I avoid run-of-the-mill blended scotches like Chivas and Dewars and J&B. And those, I'll just drink on the rocks since there's not much there to mess up with water. And no, I don't bother with such lightweights as Dalwhinnie. Give me something bold like Talisker or Lagavulin or something elegant and refined like Oban any day. I certainly won't pass up the "Rolls-Royce of SMs", the various Macallans either. The 21 is a wonderful scotch...just a bit overprised for my tastes. The 12 is acceptable but it doesn't invoke the senses like the others I've named. 100% Scottish and agree with everything you say here. Doubt if any of it could be proved with a double blind test though. Try one of each of the tinctures listed and it might end up as a "completely blind" test. :-) Rod. |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
YIKES!
Knob CREEK, HEAVEN Hill.... And last night was a dry night... But we have a new kitten in the house so not much sleep as he wanted to play starting about 4:00am. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Having worked in Tucson Arizona for a couple of years, I have a certain notoriety back home for my deadly Margaritas. People happily knock back a large beaker of that tasty refreshing citrus drink at a summer barbie, and then can't understand why their legs don't work properly anymore... :-) OTOH, sorry, tequila on its own tastes disgusting, hence the salt and lime ritual. As ever, YMMV. Apparently you've not tried GOOD tequila. |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:47:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote: On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 17:10:42 +0000 (UTC), in rec.audio.opinion you wrote: On 6 Mar 2006 08:30:25 -0800, " wrote: Proves once again that one may safely leave sticky cocktails to "engineers" like plumbers, carpenters, carpetlayers, garbage disposers, nightsoil removers, spam postmen, suchlike. Not to mention pretentious twits who wouldn't know a single-malt from a blend, or good bourbon from battery-acid... Really? You know anyone like that? If bourbon's so great, why does no one drink it 'straight up'? Because some actually do. Especially some of the more refined products like Woodford Reserve or Knob Creek. It's becoming a more acceptable after dinner cognac-type drink, just like single-malts are. I'm not a bourbon fan though. Too sweet for my tastes. I *will* occasionally have a good bourbon as described but it's rare. I'm a scotch guy pretty much down the line and I turn up my nose at those contrived whiskys like Canadian Club and Crown Royal. Also, I'm on record as saying that I prefer a single *small* cube of ice in my single-malt. I like it because a single malt is best enjoyed (IMO) with just a touch of water, which cuts the initial numbing burning alcohol hit that interferes with the ability to taste the subtleies (sp?) of the flavor profile. Even Michael Jackson (not Jacko) claims that you get the best experience that way, although he, like you, talks about a tiny bit of highland branch water (he says that it actually releases the locked-in aroma). I just find that a little ice cube accomplishes the same thing and I'm not so anal that I'd find that using local water detracts from the experience. The ice quickly melts to just about the right amount of water and it slightly cools the liquid, which I find appealing. It doesn't chill it, which I WOULDN'T like at all and it doesn't unduly dilute the beverage. And finally, I have no problem drinking a "blended" single malt like Famous Grouse. I find it to offer a modicum of single-malt pleasure at about half the cost. I guess it's the 1/16th Scottish in me. Unless I'm forced to drink them by circumstances, I avoid run-of-the-mill blended scotches like Chivas and Dewars and J&B. And those, I'll just drink on the rocks since there's not much there to mess up with water. And no, I don't bother with such lightweights as Dalwhinnie. Give me something bold like Talisker or Lagavulin or something elegant and refined like Oban any day. I certainly won't pass up the "Rolls-Royce of SMs", the various Macallans either. The 21 is a wonderful scotch...just a bit overprised for my tastes. The 12 is acceptable but it doesn't invoke the senses like the others I've named. Damn, I'm thirsty. Shame that I have to work tonight... Your liking for the magnificent Lagavulin forgives many sins! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
On 6 Mar 2006 09:50:44 -0800, " wrote:
YIKES! Any good distilled spirit should be taken neat. And a very good bourbon is all of that. If you want to try for yourself, Evan Williams and/or Ezra Brooks will stand up to any blended scotch, certainly, and (here) at a far lower cost, of course.... especially against swill like the various Jonney Walkers of the world. Knob Hill makes a very nice single-barrel bourbon, Makers Mark has several good ones and there are various others. Clearly you are in the Jim Beam/Wild Turkey/Jack Daniels crap-for-export orbit, so your opinion is well justified if that is your universe-of-choice. Fair enough, I accept there's likely good stuff that we Brits never see. Now, of course Gin and Vodka are alcohol delivery systems and fall outside the range of 'good'... being not much more than neutral spirits with either flavor added (gin) or not (vodka). But there are differences in quality having to do with the distillation process as noted below. Oh, as an aside: "flavored" vodkas are not fit for anything more than fire-starting. Agree on vodka - basically just ethanol - but there are some very good gins around, again, not something you'll find on supermarket shelves. The mark of very good spirits beyond the taste is the fact that there is no nasty 'head' the next day... if one indulges to excess. Careful distillation removes nearly all the keytones and thereby the nasty part of the hangover that goes with them. Vert true - although one does tend to have a Johnny Carson voice for a while in the morning...... :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
"dizzy" wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Having worked in Tucson Arizona for a couple of years, I have a certain notoriety back home for my deadly Margaritas. People happily knock back a large beaker of that tasty refreshing citrus drink at a summer barbie, and then can't understand why their legs don't work properly anymore... :-) OTOH, sorry, tequila on its own tastes disgusting, hence the salt and lime ritual. As ever, YMMV. Apparently you've not tried GOOD tequila. What are your 3 favorites? I didn't think I was going to, but I found out that I actually like Cabo Wabo. |
WHY ANDREW JUTE MCCOY IS A LIAR
wrote:
"dizzy" wrote: Apparently you've not tried GOOD tequila. What are your 3 favorites? I didn't think I was going to, but I found out that I actually like Cabo Wabo. Cabo Wabo is one of my favorites. I also like Chinaco, and I'm currently working on a bottle of Patron that's not bad. I've only recently "discovered" good tequila, so I'm still experimenting... I prefer the reposado variety in all brands. I enjoy getting "newbies" to try it - they react to the suggestion as one might expect, with that "Tequila straight? Yuck!" look on their faces... 8) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk