Poopie Stevenson admits he's a permanent loser About Andre Jute
 

On Oct 28, 6:53 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Not when you claim that a Class A device never ceases conducting
"under any signal condition."

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

Maybe you could make a living as comedian. I'll throw you a few one-
liners to start you off:

Poopie: I'm an electronics engineer.

Poopie: I understand cirkew-- you know, those electric thingies.

Poopie: I'm cleverer than you.

Graham

LOL.

Unsigned for the usual reason
That too

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge
 

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

High fidelity is not in any of the the group names, even the irrelevant one (and one you were
asked not to post to ) that you ADDED.

If you want hi-fi, the last thing you want are TOOBS. TOOBS have poor linearity and any attempt
to make a hi-fi amp with them is a struggle with their many limitations.

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

However tubes do distort the sound in an 'artistic' way which makes them very suitable for
instrument amplification and 'sound efffects'.

Graham

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge
 

In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Oct 28, 8:18 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro.
None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an
examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379
...

Graham

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

I don't know about Eeyore's "low-rent soundbites" beyond the fact that
they are annoying, but the rec.audio.tbues charter, which I posted a
couple of days ago, includes guitar amps, as well as high fidelity
amplifiers, and even radios which some one was complaining about, which
was the reason I posted the charter. So cut Eeyore some slack on the
guitar amp bit, but keep "helping" him change his habit of using those
irritating "low-rent soundbites".


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Poopie's zero Credibility Quotient, was Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge
 

On Oct 28, 10:52 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

High fidelity is not in any of the the group names, even the irrelevant one (and one you were
asked not to post to ) that you ADDED.

Are you illiterate as well as stupid, Poopie? John Byrns published the
by-laws precisely for your edification. They include high fidelity
applications, tube radios, even guitar amps.

The rest of this crap is only your crudely uninformed opinion, which
on civilized newsgroups has zero Credibility Quotient.

Anyway, I'm bored with you wriggling like demented worm on a hook.

Flick.

Unsigned out of contempt


If you want hi-fi, the last thing you want are TOOBS. TOOBS have poor linearity and any attempt
to make a hi-fi amp with them is a struggle with their many limitations.

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

However tubes do distort the sound in an 'artistic' way which makes them very suitable for
instrument amplification and 'sound efffects'.

Graham

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge
 

On Oct 28, 11:31 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:



On Oct 28, 8:18 pm, Eeyore
wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro.
None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an
examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379
...

Graham

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

I don't know about Eeyore's "low-rent soundbites" beyond the fact that
they are annoying, but the rec.audio.tbues charter, which I posted a
couple of days ago, includes guitar amps, as well as high fidelity
amplifiers, and even radios which some one was complaining about, which
was the reason I posted the charter. So cut Eeyore some slack on the
guitar amp bit, but keep "helping" him change his habit of using those
irritating "low-rent soundbites".

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

I have no problem with guitar amps. One of the first amps I ever built
from scratch was a guitar amp out of Aspen Pitman's book -- I chose it
because I had a few of the right tubes in a stash an old ham gave me,
and a chassis out of a wrecked radio a local collector gave me because
it had the right sockets and holes on it. It had a delicious sound. I
sold it for 600 Irish pounds, about a thousand dollars, to a local
audiophile who fell in love with its sound -- and hardly a month goes
by that I don't think of it and regret selling that crude little amp.

My question was about whether Poopie Stevenson has any connection to
high fidelity. He has since admitted he has no interest in high
fidelity. Which is what we knew already.

I suppose Poopie might be on RAT for the "toobed" guitar amps, but
apparently he hates tubes too.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

A challenge to the Dutch
 

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
Are we anti-gay here? I mean, obviously the Australians will be.

And why would any sane person say that?

But the rest of us, with non-criminal ancestries?

Are just bigots?

MrT.

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message ...


Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Byrns wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Guys, please. ALL of you keep this trash out of rec.audio.pro. None of
it belongs here. You are ALL perpetuating this mindless thread.
--scott

Scott, the problem is that Graham Stevenson, a.k.a. "Eeyore" doesn't
belong in rec.audio.tubes

I belong there every bit as much as you do you slimy toad.

Looks like I know more about tubes than you do for sure.

That may very well be true, but so far you haven't shown us any evidence
to suggest that it is actually true. Why don't you start by describing
some of your tube projects, then we can better judge. Don't hold back,
your descriptions don't have to be up to Patrick's high standards.

Even if you do know more about tubes than I do, that doesn't foreclose
the possibility that there are a few things I know about tubes that you
don't, which would seem to be the relevant issue here.

Here's an examplehttp://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=17015752379...

All right, Poopie, it's a guitar amp.

So, what does either a guitar amp or you have to do with high fidelity
sound reproduction?

Or are we supposed once more to read something between the lines of
your obscure low-rent soundbites?

High fidelity is not in any of the the group names, even the irrelevant one (and one you were
asked not to post to ) that you ADDED.

If you want hi-fi, the last thing you want are TOOBS. TOOBS have poor linearity and any attempt
to make a hi-fi amp with them is a struggle with their many limitations.

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired microphones use them, right?

You appear to be in competition with Andre for the horse's ass award, spewing horse****
like that.

However tubes do distort the sound in an 'artistic' way which makes them very suitable for
instrument amplification and 'sound efffects'.

Graham

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge
 

Phread wrote:

Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired
microphones use them, right?

You misrepresent the facts of the actual market. A few vintage microphones
use them and are in high regard for all kinds of reasons, including the
roll-off caused by their transformers and the specific way their capsules
have decayed. Those are the "worlds most desired" ones and there are also a
few small capsule mics that are in very high regard.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge
 

"Phread" wrote in message
...
Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired microphones
use them, right?

Exactly!
"Accurate" sound reproduction of many vocalists is the last thing they want.
Warm and fuzzy is often more desirable :-)

MrT.

Eeyore's tube projects/knowledge
 

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message ...

"Phread" wrote in message
...
Tubes are a near irrelevance to accurate sound reproduction.

That would be why many if not most of the world's most desired microphones
use them, right?

Exactly!
"Accurate" sound reproduction of many vocalists is the last thing they want.
Warm and fuzzy is often more desirable :-)

MrT.

Go tell that to the people on RAP who use these mics every day, MrT.

Naw, ferget it, I'm not going to send you on a suicide mission.

Fred