We have low cost high volume production amps that exceed any reasonable
need. AK

OK - so the 'need' for a reference system, e.g. for professional
musicians, that is better than high volume production ss amps is
"unreasonable".

Amps are only useful and interesting as components of more complex
systems,
they are almost completely disinteresting as ends in themselves. AK

So why do you and Jim (DHTs) insist on pontificating over componants
which you have no interest in? Why should people who are seriously
involved in building and improving such componants be REMOTELY
interested in your pompous views when you clearly are only interested
in breezing in and out of threads without contributing anything of
value to the actual R+D of such componants. This is EXTREMELY tiresome
when it has to be endured on a regular basis. On other newsgroups
people actually help each other build projects, go through different
iterations, contribute experience of their own builds, suggest
modifications. Result - great equipment. Think about it.


The 'analogy' Andy gave was, actually, quite useful - it does show his
lack of grasp of the scientific method and how it can be applied in such cases. (Jim)

"Useful" only in the sense of getting Jim his usual kicks from
appealing to the whole of the world who he assumes is on his side and
ready to tut tut in rhythm. We used to have people like that in school
- we called them "teachers pets". I'm sure you remember the kind of
thing "Please miss, Penny's stolen the blackboard cleaner and she's got
it under her desk".......

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
We have low cost high volume production amps that exceed any reasonable
need. AK

OK - so the 'need' for a reference system, e.g. for professional
musicians, that is better than high volume production ss amps is
"unreasonable".

Amps are only useful and interesting as components of more complex
systems,
they are almost completely disinteresting as ends in themselves. AK

So why do you and Jim (DHTs) insist on pontificating over componants
which you have no interest in? Why should people who are seriously
involved in building and improving such componants be REMOTELY
interested in your pompous views when you clearly are only interested
in breezing in and out of threads without contributing anything of
value to the actual R+D of such componants. This is EXTREMELY tiresome
when it has to be endured on a regular basis. On other newsgroups
people actually help each other build projects, go through different
iterations, contribute experience of their own builds, suggest
modifications. Result - great equipment. Think about it.


Where Arny's postulation falls on its arse is that for some people a 'low
cost high volume production amp' simply don't cut the mustard. I have 3 such
amps here and they are fine for their specific purposes (one is an AV amp
and is used daily) but they are not *best* for serious listening and
certainly don't do vinyl any favours, which might explain some of the
attitudes in here...??

In article .com,
Andy
Evans wrote:
We have low cost high volume production amps that exceed any reasonable
need. AK

OK - so the 'need' for a reference system, e.g. for professional
musicians, that is better than high volume production ss amps is
"unreasonable".

Amps are only useful and interesting as components of more complex
systems, they are almost completely disinteresting as ends in
themselves. AK

So why do you and Jim (DHTs) insist on pontificating over componants
which you have no interest in?

You seem to have a base-apex confusion. The recent history is that you were
'pontificating'[1] about DHTs and I asked you if you could provide some
evidence or explanation.

My 'interest' was that I was curious to see what might cause a DHT to
produce the sonic differences you were asserting. IIRC You then failed to
give any plausible physical explanation or any assessible evidence that
there was a real audible difference.

Fortunately, Nick *did* make some useful comments on the issue that may be
relevant. So he did attempt to answer the questions. What he wrote seems
quite plausible to me, but IIRC no-one offerred any specific evidence to
support your assertion that this *did* have an audible effect.

Unfortunately, Andy, you then interpreted my questions, and my noting
that you had not provided any assessable evidence as if it were a
personal attack on you. I regret that, however I have a habit of trying
to consider evidence when I can, not simply accept what I am told to
believe, by you or anyone else. I am sorry if this annoys you.

As I said previously, I can see no reason to claim that DHTs *can't*
affect the sound. It seems quite plausible that they might, depending
on the details of how they are used. The problem is that I've seen no
reliable evidence of this.


Slainte,

Jim

[1] If you look up 'pontificate'or 'pontificating' in a dictionary
you find that it essentially means making statements that you
expect others to accept simply on the basis that you are an
'authority' that cannot be questioned. Andy made the statement
asserting that DHTs affected the sound. I asked for some
evidence or explanation to support his assertions. Asking
someone for an explanation or evidence so you can judge
for yourself isn't what I'd normally call 'pontificating'.
Making statements and expecting people to accept them without
any evidence seems more like it to me. :-)


--
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

The recent history is that you were 'pontificating'[1] about DHTs and I
asked you if you could provide some evidence or explanation.

I remarked that in the opinion of myself and some colleagues who were
also working with small DHTs, they sounded better than all the IDHTs
we'd tried. This is completely banal blogging of construction
experiences by DIY audio people, who then refer to the collective
opinions on componants in web searches when they want to assemble
componants for their own builds. They value such comments in any way
they like - that's up to them. Contingencies are the first part of the
creative process - you work out the parameters on which you want to
proceed using available information as part of the process, but how you
then proceed is up to you. What I was annoyed about, continue to be
annoyed about and will continue to be annoyed about is your insatiable
internal need for evidence when it's imposed in a condescending way on
whatever people or circumstances cross your path, whether they need to
know, don't need to know or even are completely disinterested in your
internal needs. You don't respect people who do things differently -
you talk down to them. In this case, you have nothing whatever to
contribute to building with DHTs, yet you ask for evidence, double
blind tests etc etc. Nobody is going to go out of their way to provide
you with proof if it isn't relevant to what they're doing. For goodness
sakes, how many people use double blind tests as part of their A-B
comparisons when trying out different circuit or componant
modifications? Yet you talk down to such experimenters as if they are
on the lunatic fringe, dabbling in magic and voodoo.

My 'interest' was that I was curious to see what might cause a DHT to
produce the sonic differences you were asserting. IIRC You then failed
to
give any plausible physical explanation or any assessible evidence that

there was a real audible difference.

Of course I failed - why should I spend my time trying to dig up arcane
double blind tests which have nothing to do with the work in hand. Just
how important do you think you are? Pretty important I guess judging by
your string of websites trumpeting your achievements that you enclose
with each of your posts.


Fortunately, Nick *did* make some useful comments

Fortunately for WHO???? See above.

Unfortunately, Andy, you then interpreted my questions, and my noting
that you had not provided any assessable evidence as if it were a
personal attack on you.

Unfortunately, my dear Jim, you do attack people in a personal way. How
you fail to notice this I really have no idea.

I regret that, however I have a habit of trying to consider evidence
when I can

You don't regret it for a moment and you're not sorry when this annoys
people. You never have changed and you won't change.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

note that extensive corrections were required to makes Andy's quoting
legible and even semi-standard

We have low cost high volume production amps that exceed any reasonable
need. AK

OK - so the 'need' for a reference system, e.g. for professional
musicians, that is better than high volume production ss amps is
"unreasonable".

First prove the need.

Amps are only useful and interesting as components of more complex
systems,

they are almost completely disinteresting as ends in themselves. AK

So why do you and Jim (DHTs) insist on pontificating over componants
which you have no interest in?

Me, pontificate?

Why should people who are seriously
involved in building and improving such componants be REMOTELY
interested in your pompous views when you clearly are only interested
in breezing in and out of threads without contributing anything of
value to the actual R+D of such componants.

Pointing out redundacy and wasted effort can be valuable services.

This is EXTREMELY tiresome
when it has to be endured on a regular basis.

Then don't read our posts. Is there a man with a gun that makes you hurt
yourself this way?

On other newsgroups
people actually help each other build projects, go through different
iterations, contribute experience of their own builds, suggest
modifications.

Been there, done that.

Result - great equipment.

Not in every case. There are pompous people who pretend to be experts and
lead people in circles. Pointing those people out is a valuable public
service that some of us provide.

Think about it.

Talk about being pompous. Note Andy's suggestion that people need his
prompting to think.

The 'analogy' Andy gave was, actually, quite useful - it does show his
lack of grasp of the scientific method and how it can be applied in such
cases. (Jim)

"Useful" only in the sense of getting Jim his usual kicks from
appealing to the whole of the world who he assumes is on his side and
ready to tut tut in rhythm.

Whatever that means.

Jim's a good guy with lots of valuable information and wisdom to share.

We used to have people like that in school
- we called them "teachers pets".

Yeah, and they probably got far better grades than you did, Andy.

Still devoting your life to resolving your childhood hurts?

I'm sure you remember the kind of
thing "Please miss, Penny's stolen the blackboard cleaner and she's got
it under her desk".......

There's no relevance to that, and what Jim contributes. In fact Andy, your
post right here reads more like that.