On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"SMWTMS listening tests at Jeff's Vajgart's apartment in May, 1977 compared
several "good" and "bad" amplifiers. My Dyna 400, and a Paoli 60 owned by
David West, represented the former. Two home brew amplifiers - the
Muller/Heath 10/7 watt (tube) and David Clark's "Schwartz 40" represented
the latter. Jeff had Spendor Loudspeakers, which were known to be accurate
reproducers."

This isn't proof. It's just a statement that you made.

BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?

guffaw!

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.

Maybe to *your* crew.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.

Maybe to *your* crew.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:40:05 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"SMWTMS listening tests at Jeff's Vajgart's apartment in May, 1977 compared
several "good" and "bad" amplifiers. My Dyna 400, and a Paoli 60 owned by
David West, represented the former. Two home brew amplifiers - the
Muller/Heath 10/7 watt (tube) and David Clark's "Schwartz 40" represented
the latter. Jeff had Spendor Loudspeakers, which were known to be accurate
reproducers."

This isn't proof. It's just a statement that you made.

Given that the test took place in 1977, anyone who actually *knew*
anything about hi-fi would be aware that only the cheapest and
nastiest available valve amps were single-ended at that time. The
Mullard 10/7 is a classic push-pull design which was co-opted by
Heath.

BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?

Possibly to prove that even such an amp can be sonically transparent?
BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:40:05 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"SMWTMS listening tests at Jeff's Vajgart's apartment in May, 1977 compared
several "good" and "bad" amplifiers. My Dyna 400, and a Paoli 60 owned by
David West, represented the former. Two home brew amplifiers - the
Muller/Heath 10/7 watt (tube) and David Clark's "Schwartz 40" represented
the latter. Jeff had Spendor Loudspeakers, which were known to be accurate
reproducers."

This isn't proof. It's just a statement that you made.

Given that the test took place in 1977, anyone who actually *knew*
anything about hi-fi would be aware that only the cheapest and
nastiest available valve amps were single-ended at that time. The
Mullard 10/7 is a classic push-pull design which was co-opted by
Heath.

BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?

Possibly to prove that even such an amp can be sonically transparent?
BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.

Maybe to *your* crew.

To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
SET amp from before 1980.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:43:03 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Ironically, SETs were virtually unknown as hifi amplifiers at the time.

Maybe to *your* crew.

To *everyone*, you ignorant troll. Find me *one* supposedly 'hi fi'
SET amp from before 1980.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?

Possibly to prove that even such an amp can be sonically transparent?
BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.

I hope you're not seriously telling us that Krooger and a bunch of
other idiots are (or were) capable of designing a meaningful test.
That would make you the king of the idiots, Pukey.

Stewart Pinkerton said:

BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?

Possibly to prove that even such an amp can be sonically transparent?
BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.

I hope you're not seriously telling us that Krooger and a bunch of
other idiots are (or were) capable of designing a meaningful test.
That would make you the king of the idiots, Pukey.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:34:50 GMT, (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

On , 25 Sep 2003 10:40:05 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:47:16 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"SMWTMS listening tests at Jeff's Vajgart's apartment in May, 1977 compared
several "good" and "bad" amplifiers. My Dyna 400, and a Paoli 60 owned by
David West, represented the former. Two home brew amplifiers - the
Muller/Heath 10/7 watt (tube) and David Clark's "Schwartz 40" represented
the latter. Jeff had Spendor Loudspeakers, which were known to be accurate
reproducers."

This isn't proof. It's just a statement that you made.

Given that the test took place in 1977, anyone who actually *knew*
anything about hi-fi would be aware that only the cheapest and
nastiest available valve amps were single-ended at that time. The
Mullard 10/7 is a classic push-pull design which was co-opted by
Heath.

What does have to do with Arnold's "proof" that the unidentified 10
watt amp tested on the ABX site was actually a Heath? Is this the kind
of "science" that you use?

BTW, even if it were true, why were you using obviously poorly built
home-brew amplifiers in a serious test?

Possibly to prove that even such an amp can be sonically transparent?

That wouldn't "prove" that an amp was sonically transparent. It would
just show the difference between a poorly built amp and another amp.
It wouldn't "prove" that the other amp was "transparent", just
different.

BTW, where is the evidence that it was poorly constructed? As ever
Vile, you're just a brain-dead troll.

Tell me, if it *were* a 'classic push-pull design" "properly
constructed", wouldn't it have sounded the SAME as the other amp?
Isn't that what you claim? You say that an SET would sound the same,
right?

Oooops, looks like you blew a fuse there, Stewie.