"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


This question has no meaningful answer - whether amplifiers sound
different (as many designers, manufacturers, salesmen and magazine
scribblers would have you believe) or not is not the point;

*Who's* "point"? It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine.

Who cares?

Well apparently *you* do, otherwise you wouldn't have been so keen to tell
us what "the point" was!

it's whether or not they *appear* to, to you. Like a distant oasis in a
desert - it's not a case of it being real or a mirage, but whether or
not you can *see* it.

So as far as you are concerned a mirage is just as good as a real oasis,
just as long as you can *see* it!


Sure, if all you want to do is look at it; the illusion falls apart if and
when you want a drink - which is a bit like wanting Bjork's autograph
after listening to one of her recordings in your own room.


The point (*my* point) is that if the apparent difference in sound is
actually an illusion, and you are spending money chasing that illusion, they
you are fooling yourself in an expensive manner. Why not just stick a photo
of an SET amp in front of something readily available and cheap? it should
sound just like an SET to you.

David.

"UnsteadyKen"
Phil Allison wrote..

If the significance of this is lost on you - there is no point in trying
to
explain it.

I got it,


** No you ****ing did not - you stupid PITA troll.


I just wondered if you had come across any situation in which
a definite difference could reliably be heard.


** Obviously you did not comprehend my article on the ESP site at all.

Try again - with your fat head out of your arse this time.

http://sound.westhost.com/absw.htm

This bit for example:

" Providing the two amps to be compared are of high quality (why would you
be interested in anything else?) and of course fault free, the gains are
carefully matched and have similar bandwidth the device permits instant and
seamless switching of the amplifier outputs to the speakers at the push of
the button in the listeners hand."




...... Phil

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


This question has no meaningful answer - whether amplifiers sound
different (as many designers, manufacturers, salesmen and magazine
scribblers would have you believe) or not is not the point;

*Who's* "point"? It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine.

Who cares?

Well apparently *you* do, otherwise you wouldn't have been so keen to tell
us what "the point" was!


No, I don't care that my point isn't *your* point....



it's whether or not they *appear* to, to you. Like a distant oasis in a
desert - it's not a case of it being real or a mirage, but whether or
not you can *see* it.

So as far as you are concerned a mirage is just as good as a real oasis,
just as long as you can *see* it!


Sure, if all you want to do is look at it; the illusion falls apart if
and when you want a drink - which is a bit like wanting Bjork's autograph
after listening to one of her recordings in your own room.


The point (*my* point) is that if the apparent difference in sound is
actually an illusion,


It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine; my allusion is only that the
reality of the sound is an illusion, I make no reference to apparent
differences in the sound, real or imagined....


and you are spending money chasing that illusion, they
you are fooling yourself in an expensive manner. Why not just stick a
photo of an SET amp in front of something readily available and cheap? it
should sound just like an SET to you.


OK, just another rickety excuse for a bit of SET-bashing, then? Fine, but as
usual and like the other SS bigots in here, you have got all lathered up and
run orf in the wrong direction - let me simplify the difference between SET
and SS setups for you:

Think of the difference between a 'SET/horns' setup and a 'normal' setup as
being like a live 'Theatre Sound' versus a 'Cinema Sound' where the 'Theatre
Sound' is realistic and lifelike with clarity, depth and 3D imaging rather
than *impressive* and that 'Cinema Sound' gives you greater amounts of 2D
'dynamics' and trouser-flapping bass. OK?

:-)

"Keith G" wrote in message


OK, just another rickety excuse for a bit of SET-bashing,
then?

In reply to how many dozen bits of SET-worship from you, Keith?

Fine, but as usual and like the other SS bigots in
here, you have got all lathered up and run orf in the
wrong direction - let me simplify the difference between
SET and SS setups for you:


let me do the same -

SET - added inconvenience, expense and audible distortion.

SS - inaudible distortion and also far more convenient to obtain and use.


Think of the difference between a 'SET/horns' setup and a
'normal' setup as being like a live 'Theatre Sound'

and also live sound, AKA "public address systems", "DJ systems", and
"Rock-and-roll concert" systems. They are all based on high efficiency
transducers driven by powerful SS amplfiers.

Ooops, in practice, no SET amplifiers in sight. Thus the inclusion of SETs
must be completely gratuitous and unfounded.


versus a 'Cinema Sound' where the 'Theatre Sound' is
realistic and lifelike with clarity, depth and 3D imaging
rather than *impressive* and that 'Cinema Sound' gives
you greater amounts of 2D 'dynamics' and trouser-flapping
bass. OK?

Confused small conflagration of words summing up to total nonsense.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


OK, just another rickety excuse for a bit of SET-bashing,
then?

In reply to how many dozen bits of SET-worship from you, Keith?

Fine, but as usual and like the other SS bigots in
here, you have got all lathered up and run orf in the
wrong direction - let me simplify the difference between
SET and SS setups for you:


let me do the same -


Go for it!



SET - added inconvenience, expense and audible distortion.


Horse****....



SS - inaudible distortion and also far more convenient to obtain and use.


Since when does 'convenient' substitute for 'preferable' unless you are
*very* lazy?




Think of the difference between a 'SET/horns' setup and a
'normal' setup as being like a live 'Theatre Sound'

and also live sound, AKA "public address systems", "DJ systems", and
"Rock-and-roll concert" systems. They are all based on high efficiency
transducers driven by powerful SS amplfiers.


Sound source is not sound reproduction, otherwise a *distorted guitar* would
be inadmissible and Public address systems come under the heading of 'Cinema
Sound' in my book - you've obviously never been to a live theatre.......


Ooops, in practice, no SET amplifiers in sight. Thus the inclusion of SETs
must be completely gratuitous and unfounded.


Confused small conflagration of words summing up to total nonsense....




versus a 'Cinema Sound' where the 'Theatre Sound' is
realistic and lifelike with clarity, depth and 3D imaging
rather than *impressive* and that 'Cinema Sound' gives
you greater amounts of 2D 'dynamics' and trouser-flapping
bass. OK?

Confused small conflagration of words summing up to total nonsense.


OK, I can see you got lost, so I'll simplify for you:

'Theatre Sound' = realistic and lifelike with clarity, depth and 3D imaging.

'Cinema Sound' = you greater amounts of 2D 'dynamics' and trouser-flapping
bass.

Did that do it?

cue Plowie 'bout now - he always like to try and get the boot in when
someone else is in the fray...

:-)

Phil Allison wrote..

I just wondered if you had come across any situation in which
a definite difference could reliably be heard.


** Obviously you did not comprehend my article on the ESP site at all.

Try again - with your fat head out of your arse this time.

I asked the question because I was curious, not because I was trying to
score points. I'll take your answer as no and leave it at that.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


This question has no meaningful answer - whether amplifiers sound
different (as many designers, manufacturers, salesmen and magazine
scribblers would have you believe) or not is not the point;

*Who's* "point"? It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine.

Who cares?

Well apparently *you* do, otherwise you wouldn't have been so keen to
tell us what "the point" was!


No, I don't care that my point isn't *your* point....

But then it's not *the* point as you claimed, it's *your* point.



It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine; my allusion is only that
the reality of the sound is an illusion,

The sound that issues from a loudspeaker is not an illusion, it has an
objective physical reality. The effect that sound has on the listener may be
an illusion filtered, as it is, via that listeners state of mind,
prejudices, moods etc. What subjective listening test have shown time after
time is that the perceived differences between the sound of different
amplifiers disappear once the listener is deprived of the knowledge of which
amplifier he's listening to. In other words the *objective* sounds issuing
from the loudspeaker are indistinguishable, the differences lie entirely
within the minds of the listeners.

I make no reference to apparent
differences in the sound, real or imagined....


and you are spending money chasing that illusion, they
you are fooling yourself in an expensive manner. Why not just stick a
photo of an SET amp in front of something readily available and cheap? it
should sound just like an SET to you.


OK, just another rickety excuse for a bit of SET-bashing, then?

I make no apologies for "SET bashing". SETs were where audio started out
some 90 years ago. In the meantime audio engineers have worked succesfully
to build amplifiers that imporoved on those early designs significantly.
Tell me, do you drive a car built to a 1895 design and claim it to be
"better" than a modern car?

Fine, but as usual and like the other SS bigots in here,

Preferring amplifiers with negligible distortion, ample power handling,
greater efficiency and reliability all at a very reasonable cost does not
make me a "bigot"!

you have got all lathered up and
run orf in the wrong direction - let me simplify the difference between
SET and SS setups for you:

Think of the difference between a 'SET/horns' setup and a 'normal' setup
as being like a live 'Theatre Sound' versus a 'Cinema Sound' where the
'Theatre Sound' is realistic and lifelike with clarity, depth and 3D
imaging rather than *impressive* and that 'Cinema Sound' gives you greater
amounts of 2D 'dynamics' and trouser-flapping bass. OK?


I doubt that there is a theatre in the land that doesn't have a 100% SS
sound system. But why the negative comments about Cinema Sound, when you
were wetting yourself earlier with the wonderful sound you were getting from
BlueRay?

Personally I've heard plenty of poor sound in theatres and excellent sound
in Cinemas, as well as the other way about.

David.

David Looser wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

This question has no meaningful answer - whether amplifiers sound
different (as many designers, manufacturers, salesmen and magazine
scribblers would have you believe) or not is not the point;
*Who's* "point"? It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine.
Who cares?

Well apparently *you* do, otherwise you wouldn't have been so keen to
tell us what "the point" was!

No, I don't care that my point isn't *your* point....

But then it's not *the* point as you claimed, it's *your* point.
It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine; my allusion is only that
the reality of the sound is an illusion,

The sound that issues from a loudspeaker is not an illusion, it has an
objective physical reality. The effect that sound has on the listener may be
an illusion filtered, as it is, via that listeners state of mind,
prejudices, moods etc. What subjective listening test have shown time after
time is that the perceived differences between the sound of different
amplifiers disappear once the listener is deprived of the knowledge of which
amplifier he's listening to. In other words the *objective* sounds issuing
from the loudspeaker are indistinguishable, the differences lie entirely
within the minds of the listeners.

I make no reference to apparent
differences in the sound, real or imagined....


and you are spending money chasing that illusion, they
you are fooling yourself in an expensive manner. Why not just stick a
photo of an SET amp in front of something readily available and cheap? it
should sound just like an SET to you.

OK, just another rickety excuse for a bit of SET-bashing, then?

I make no apologies for "SET bashing". SETs were where audio started out
some 90 years ago. In the meantime audio engineers have worked succesfully
to build amplifiers that imporoved on those early designs significantly.
Tell me, do you drive a car built to a 1895 design and claim it to be
"better" than a modern car?

Fine, but as usual and like the other SS bigots in here,

Preferring amplifiers with negligible distortion, ample power handling,
greater efficiency and reliability all at a very reasonable cost does not
make me a "bigot"!


You do seem rather fixated. And at least a less than discerning listener?

Rob

Hello there Keith btw :-)

"David Looser" wrote

untidy **** snipped - some people will put up with anything....


The sound that issues from a loudspeaker is not an illusion, it has an
objective physical reality. The effect that sound has on the listener may
be
an illusion filtered, as it is, via that listeners state of mind,
prejudices, moods etc. What subjective listening test have shown time
after
time is that the perceived differences between the sound of different
amplifiers disappear once the listener is deprived of the knowledge of
which
amplifier he's listening to. In other words the *objective* sounds issuing
from the loudspeaker are indistinguishable, the differences lie entirely
within the minds of the listeners.


No, you're missing the point - the job of a hifi system is to try and
convince you that 'you are there' (as *one* here would once have had it) -
ie create an illusion of 'reality'. On a really good system, the sound is to
try and recreate a realistic illusion of, say, a viola well enough that you
don't confuse it with the sound you would expect to hear from a violin.

But please save yourself the effort and don't bang on about 'differences'
between amplifiers, especially SS amps (of which I have and use 3 on a daily
basis) - I have never said anything *other* than they sound the 'same'! My
personal hobby horses are 'vinyl vs, digital' and 'horns' vs. 'normal
speakers' - both of which are distinctly different to my ears, as are the
differences between various phono carts....

Consider this also - I have and use *both* valve and SS amps; I have and use
*both* vinyl and 'digital music'. OK? And you use what...??


OK, just another rickety excuse for a bit of SET-bashing, then?

I make no apologies for "SET bashing". SETs were where audio started out
some 90 years ago. In the meantime audio engineers have worked succesfully
to build amplifiers that imporoved on those early designs significantly.
Tell me, do you drive a car built to a 1895 design and claim it to be
"better" than a modern car?

Red Herring - 'modern' cars, like modern audio, are only 'improvements on
the original designsfrom back then, but WTF has that got to do with it?
Since when has *more modern* had anything to do with *quality* when it comes
to satisfying human senses?



Fine, but as usual and like the other SS bigots in here,

Preferring amplifiers with negligible distortion, ample power handling,
greater efficiency and reliability all at a very reasonable cost does not
make me a "bigot"!


Sure it does, but don't worry about it - that shot landed *exactly* where it
was supposed to!

(Right between the eyes! :-)


I doubt that there is a theatre in the land that doesn't have a 100% SS
sound system. But why the negative comments about Cinema Sound, when you
were wetting yourself earlier with the wonderful sound you were getting
from
BlueRay?


'Wetting yourself'?? That sounds a bit ghey - do you mean '****ing your
pants'...??

Bluray sound (HD) is only planar/2D 'Cinema Sound on *steroids* and 4 or
more different fronts, but don't worry about that either - a representative
of the Denial Boys will be along shortly to tell you to ignore it and urge
you to get back to nice, 16/44.1, 2-channel (*adequate*) digital sound...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


No, you're missing the point -

No I'm not. It is clearly one of your "debating" styles to tell your
opponent that they are "missing the point" when they don't agree with you,
but I see you go on to make an entirely different point as though it was
somehow the same as the last one you made (which it isn't).

the job of a hifi system is to try and convince you that 'you are there'
(as *one* here would once have had it) - ie create an illusion of
'reality'. On a really good system, the sound is to try and recreate a
realistic illusion of, say, a viola well enough that you don't confuse it
with the sound you would expect to hear from a violin.

Yes, has anyone ever said anything different?

But please save yourself the effort and don't bang on about 'differences'
between amplifiers, especially SS amps (of which I have and use 3 on a
daily basis) - I have never said anything *other* than they sound the
'same'! My personal hobby horses are 'vinyl vs, digital' and 'horns' vs.
'normal speakers' - both of which are distinctly different to my ears, as
are the differences between various phono carts....

Consider this also - I have and use *both* valve and SS amps; I have and
use *both* vinyl and 'digital music'. OK? And you use what...??


Are you trying to suggest that I am not perfectly familiar with those things
as well? what arrogance!

It's because I am perfectly familiar with vinyl and all the distortions that
it generates that I know just how much worse it is than CD. But *good* valve
amps are as good as good SS ones, just more expensive and less reliable.

David.