"Parker" wrote in message
.. .
Would you mind not telling me or others what they should or shouldn't do,
or
write here in this public debate?
Are you not tired (and some others here) of restricting to just a few ones
the conditions of every aspect in life, in order to pretend you are acting
scientifically?
Stop lying to yourself.
The man did define slam; with ironic terms you said it was b.s. and
subjective misconception. Very rude in disguise.
According to your rather instantaneous judgement I acted with rudeness and
that is a subjective impression of yours. Who gave you the power to decide
which subjective perceptions are based on real facts and which are not?
Perhaps you have a definition of rudeness somewhere.
Slam: what the O.P. defined in nice and clear terms. As a human subjective
construction based on natural facts it is specially noticeable when in two
given music reproduction equipments or rooms, one of them gives it (as
defined by the O.P.) and the other not.





"Don Pearce" escribió en el mensaje
...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:56:08 GMT, "Parker"
wrote:

Good, you felt my rudeness.
It took you less than one minute.
How can such a simple thing like "SLAMMMM" an auditive impression
commented
and defined by humans thousand times in a very long period of years
escape
your ears and brain?
Rudeness to logical reasoning, perhaps.


If you had any idea what it was, you could have simply told the OP and
everybody would have been happy. But no, instead you chose the route
of the pig ignorant. As it is, you have simply repeated the
hand-waving by saying it has been defined a thousand times; it hasn't
- and more specifically, you haven't defined it.

So please either put up or shut up - define slam or quit. Please
understand that simply spelling it wrongly and in capitals doesn't
actually demonstrate your knowledge in any measurable way.

Your choice

d





HEY, YOU GUYS !!!!!!!
I think I'll leave this one to you...........
regards
jim

"Don Pearce" escribió en el mensaje
...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:16:29 GMT, "Parker"
wrote:

Would you mind not telling me or others what they should or shouldn't do,
or
write here in this public debate?
Are you not tired (and some others here) of restricting to just a few
ones
the conditions of every aspect in life, in order to pretend you are
acting
scientifically?
Stop lying to yourself.
The man did define slam; with ironic terms you said it was b.s. and
subjective misconception. Very rude in disguise.
According to your rather instantaneous judgement I acted with rudeness
and
that is a subjective impression of yours. Who gave you the power to
decide
which subjective perceptions are based on real facts and which are not?
Perhaps you have a definition of rudeness somewhere.
Slam: what the O.P. defined in nice and clear terms. As a human
subjective
construction based on natural facts it is specially noticeable when in
two
given music reproduction equipments or rooms, one of them gives it (as
defined by the O.P.) and the other not.


Parker, you are entirely clueless - and still rude. Thank you for this
piece of slimy patronisation. It is just a shame that it is entirely
without any basis in fact.

Goodbye

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

That was door slam!
Oh, how impolite!

"Don Pearce" escribió en el mensaje
...
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:16:29 GMT, "Parker"
wrote:

Would you mind not telling me or others what they should or shouldn't do,
or
write here in this public debate?
Are you not tired (and some others here) of restricting to just a few
ones
the conditions of every aspect in life, in order to pretend you are
acting
scientifically?
Stop lying to yourself.
The man did define slam; with ironic terms you said it was b.s. and
subjective misconception. Very rude in disguise.
According to your rather instantaneous judgement I acted with rudeness
and
that is a subjective impression of yours. Who gave you the power to
decide
which subjective perceptions are based on real facts and which are not?
Perhaps you have a definition of rudeness somewhere.
Slam: what the O.P. defined in nice and clear terms. As a human
subjective
construction based on natural facts it is specially noticeable when in
two
given music reproduction equipments or rooms, one of them gives it (as
defined by the O.P.) and the other not.


Parker, you are entirely clueless - and still rude. Thank you for this
piece of slimy patronisation. It is just a shame that it is entirely
without any basis in fact.

Goodbye

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

That was door slam!
Oh, how impolite!

"The Old Fogey" wrote in message
om...
Can anyone define 'Slam' in the context of audio power amps?

The ability to deal with sudden short lived transient sounds - preferably
without affecting the rest of the output of the amp. Normally acheived with
good PSU design and big power reserves and capable of transient output well
beyond the units continuous ratings.

"The Old Fogey" wrote in message
om...
Can anyone define 'Slam' in the context of audio power amps?

The ability to deal with sudden short lived transient sounds - preferably
without affecting the rest of the output of the amp. Normally acheived with
good PSU design and big power reserves and capable of transient output well
beyond the units continuous ratings.

In message , Tim S Kemp
writes

"The Old Fogey" wrote in message
. com...
Can anyone define 'Slam' in the context of audio power amps?

The ability to deal with sudden short lived transient sounds - preferably
without affecting the rest of the output of the amp. Normally acheived with
good PSU design and big power reserves and capable of transient output well
beyond the units continuous ratings.





Apart from the fact that good PSU design means that the amp has no power
reserve! ie, that it has a well regulated PSU, so the long term output
power capability is the same as the short term one.
--
Chris Morriss

In message , Tim S Kemp
writes

"The Old Fogey" wrote in message
. com...
Can anyone define 'Slam' in the context of audio power amps?

The ability to deal with sudden short lived transient sounds - preferably
without affecting the rest of the output of the amp. Normally acheived with
good PSU design and big power reserves and capable of transient output well
beyond the units continuous ratings.





Apart from the fact that good PSU design means that the amp has no power
reserve! ie, that it has a well regulated PSU, so the long term output
power capability is the same as the short term one.
--
Chris Morriss

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:16:30 +0100, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:


"The Old Fogey" wrote in message
. com...
Can anyone define 'Slam' in the context of audio power amps?

The ability to deal with sudden short lived transient sounds - preferably
without affecting the rest of the output of the amp. Normally acheived with
good PSU design and big power reserves and capable of transient output well
beyond the units continuous ratings.


This doesn't feel right. A transient capability well beyond the
continuous rating of an amplifier speaks of poor design and an
inability to handle large signals well. In fact it is one of the
fake-power-ratings refuges of the charlatan - the old instantaneous
peak power syndrome beloved of Sinclair Radionics.

Any really good amplifier will be able to handle full power
more-or-less continuously - certainly for several minutes - without a
problem.

If slam really isn't just another piece of marketing nonsense, then it
must have a reality based in a particular sound produced by an
amplifier - that would make it some sort of specialist device for
music production, not Hi Fi reproduction.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:16:30 +0100, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:


"The Old Fogey" wrote in message
. com...
Can anyone define 'Slam' in the context of audio power amps?

The ability to deal with sudden short lived transient sounds - preferably
without affecting the rest of the output of the amp. Normally acheived with
good PSU design and big power reserves and capable of transient output well
beyond the units continuous ratings.


This doesn't feel right. A transient capability well beyond the
continuous rating of an amplifier speaks of poor design and an
inability to handle large signals well. In fact it is one of the
fake-power-ratings refuges of the charlatan - the old instantaneous
peak power syndrome beloved of Sinclair Radionics.

Any really good amplifier will be able to handle full power
more-or-less continuously - certainly for several minutes - without a
problem.

If slam really isn't just another piece of marketing nonsense, then it
must have a reality based in a particular sound produced by an
amplifier - that would make it some sort of specialist device for
music production, not Hi Fi reproduction.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Any really good amplifier will be able to handle full power
more-or-less continuously - certainly for several minutes - without a
problem.

Hmmm, yeah - I spend my life listening to square waves and pink noise so I
don't need any transient handling capability, but those who listen to real
music do!


If slam really isn't just another piece of marketing nonsense, then it
must have a reality based in a particular sound produced by an
amplifier - that would make it some sort of specialist device for
music production, not Hi Fi reproduction.

It's mostly marketing nonsense, and used a lot in the pro audio world where
transient response is vastly important, and multirail amps (class G or H I
can't remember) are more common. You should only hear a "slam" if a "slam"
was recorded or intended by the producer/artist/engineer.