Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Sounded exactly the same" is not the same as "were indistinguishable underMany moons ago, I came up with a simple demonstration
that showed clearly how a number of different make and
model stereo power amplifiers sounded exactly the same.
I don't know whether he "proved" it, but he claimed that the principal sonic"Many moons ago, I came up with a simple demonstration that showed
clearly how a number of different make and model stereo power amplifiers
sounded exactly the same. This was to clear up the notion strongly held
by their various owners that each possessed its own, distinctive "sound".
Perhaps, but Bob Carver proved the opposite.
I will accept this in the spirit in which it seems to be offered.You are, of course, correct. Let me offer an apology to William and
to this newsgroup for having provided at least half of the noise and
argumentation here. The personal attacks certainly do not add to the
body of technical understanding, and no doubt add confusion and
anxiety needlessly.
And not just portables. I once damaged a KV-1920 because I "assumed" a setSome Sony Trinitron portable sets were "live chassis" jobs.
Almost all the circuitry is at main voltage -- so you need an
isolation tranny to work on them.
that showed clearly how a number of different make and
model stereo power amplifiers sounded exactly the same.
"Sounded exactly the same" is not the same as "were indistinguishable
under the test conditions".
With respect to context, you stated that the purpose of the test was to
convince audiophiles that their belief that every amplifier had a distinct
sonic signature was invalid.
I am a writer. I understand words. You are not and do not.that showed clearly how a number of different make and
model stereo power amplifiers sounded exactly the same.
"Sounded exactly the same" is not the same as "were
indistinguishable under the test conditions".
** Yes it is.
** Massive, total fabrication !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!With respect to context, you stated that the purpose of the test
was to convince audiophiles that their belief that every amplifier
had a distinct sonic signature was invalid.
My recollection is that Carver nulled the difference signal between some highly regarded amps and his own prototype, doing so in order to "voice" his to imitate theirs. By using (again as I recall) passive reactances, he was able to get the two transfer functions so similar that their null was down many tens of dBs."Many moons ago, I came up with a simple demonstration that showed clearly
how a number of different make and model stereo power amplifiers sounded
exactly the same. This was to clear up the notion strongly held by their
various owners that each possessed its own, distinctive "sound".
"
Perhaps, but Bob Carver proved the opposite.
"Smarty" wrote in message news:kop40a$7fu$1@dont-email.me...
You are, of course, correct. Let me offer an apology to William and
to this newsgroup for having provided at least half of the noise and
argumentation here. The personal attacks certainly do not add to the
body of technical understanding, and no doubt add confusion and
anxiety needlessly.
I will accept this in the spirit in which it seems to be offered.
But... I expect you to make an effort to understand the need to
respect......
In retrospect, so very obviously true in this case, and my mistake for"Smarty
You are, of course, correct. Let me offer an apology to William and to
this newsgroup for having provided at least half of the noise and
argumentation here. The personal attacks certainly do not add to the body
of technical understanding, and no doubt add confusion and anxiety
needlessly.
Ironically, I spend some amount of time with my grand-kids preaching
fairness, absolutely no name-calling, and respect for others. And in fact,
this very topic arose tonight at a birthday celebration, where my 5 year
old grad-daughter was dealing with bullying at school.
I will sincerely avoid all such activities henceforth in the spirit of
going forward amicably, and again offer apologies to those whom I may have
offended.
** Wot a wimp out.
This newsgroups is chock full of fuckwit trolls and William one of the
worst.
Word of advice:
Never apologise to a troll - it only encourages them.
... Phil
"Smarty" wrote in message news:kop40a$7fu$1@dont-email.me...
You are, of course, correct. Let me offer an apology to William and
to this newsgroup for having provided at least half of the noise and
argumentation here. The personal attacks certainly do not add to the
body of technical understanding, and no doubt add confusion and
anxiety needlessly.
I will accept this in the spirit in which it seems to be offered.
But... I expect you to make an effort to understand the need to
respect......
I need to apologize for speaking the truth? For calling you on the line forWilliam, the olive branch and apology was offered to you sincerely and
unconditionally. I directly assumed and conveyed my responsibility for at
least half of the argumentation.
You have offered neither an apology nor any acknowledgement of your
own contribution in this regard, but instead immediately reply with your
"expectations" for what I "need to understand".
Nicely done. I'm surprised that you didn't hear any pops and clicksMy simple test is explained here:
http://sound.westhost.com/absw.htm
.... Phil
"Revue" ? Are we getting into kinky ideas now?On Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:16:48 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
Somerwanker is a criminal psychopath.
Complain to his ISP.
Get him off all newsgroups.
... Phil
Geez Phil, I never once heard William wish colon cancer on anyone, or call someone retarded or autistic. Shall we revue your postings for the last year and see who exactly is the psychopath in this group?
Hmm
Somerwanker is a criminal psychopath.
Complain to his ISP.
Get him off all newsgroups.
... Phil
I really am having some problems with understanding this. As you very well"Phil Allison" wrote in message news:b1a664F110jU1@mid.individual.net...
"Arfa Daily"
TBH, I took it as a rare flash of comedy from Phil. I thought it was
just 'tongue in cheek'?
The only interesting "flash" from Phil would be spontaneous combustion.
You are much too forgiving of Phil's grotesque misbehavior,
simply because he is extremely knowledgeable about electronics
and electronics servicing.
It is he who created the problem with his beyond-rude behavior. Neither
I nor anyone in this group is obliged to tolerate it or remain silent.
But in this case, I really think that it was just his way of expressing
tongue in cheek humour. Perhaps it doesn't translate into American?
British and Australian humour are very similar.
** Of course it was intended as humour.
Of course it wasn't. You are emotionally disturbed person who says
whatever he likes because he knows he can get away with it.
I see the same thing in every UseNet group. Person A attacks person B, and
when B defends himself, he's jumped on as the cause of the problem. Human
beings are moral idiots. They tolerate bad behavior, then blame the
victim.
Phil is clearly /capable/ of doing serious harm to someone (though whether
he actually would is unknowable). When it happens, everyone in this group
will say "Oh, gee, I never suspected. He was just making jokes." Yeah,
sure.
Phil is not a lighthearted clown. He has emotional problems. And if you
can't see that, if you think the rude, nasty things he says are "just in
fun"... What can I say?
Yes, exactly. The 'dirty patch' that I described, which is grey rather than"Arfa Daily"
As to purity errors being visible on black and white pictures, other than
the fact that the the phosphors have different efficiencies, and the
drive levels are different for assorted reasons, it doesn't actually
matter that much that the phosphors are being excited by the 'wrong'
beams. The mix will still make something that approximates to white - or
shades of grey - sufficiently well for it not to be glaringly obvious.
More a sort of 'dirty patch' on the picture. However, as soon as a colour
picture is viewed on the same gaussed up CRT, the error is immediately
visible
** I am still using a CRT monitor for my PC.
When I hold a speaker magnet about 6 inches away, white areas of the
screen become mottled with grey shadows.
However, the coloured parts change colour, blue to red, red to green etc.
QED.
.... Phil
Agreed. If you can locate the degaussing posistor, just remove it from the"micky"
"Phil Allison"
"micky"
** FFS stop wasting your and our time.
Is the set's de-gaussing thermistor working or not ??
Don't know yet. No time or space to take it apart. Have to make
room.
Does it go * BONG * at switch on or NOT ??
No, I made a special effort to listen. Turned it on several times.
I hear a relay click, but the sound is almost the same turning it off
and turning it on.
But I don't think this tv ever went BONG, like one other did.
Odds-on it is the problem and when fixed the set will de-gauss itself.
That's added incentive to turn it around and take the back off.
** Be very careful poking about on the PCB !!!!!
Some Sony Trinitron portable sets were "live chassis" jobs.
Almost all the circuitry is at main voltage - so you need an isolation
tranny to work on them.
.... Phil
that showed clearly how a number of different make and
model stereo power amplifiers sounded exactly the same.
"Sounded exactly the same" is not the same as "were
indistinguishable under the test conditions".
** Yes it is.
I am a writer. I understand words.
With respect to context, you stated that the purpose of the test
was to convince audiophiles that their belief that every amplifier
had a distinct sonic signature was invalid.
** Massive, total fabrication !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is, indeed, what you said.
Somerwanker is a criminal psychopath.
Complain to his ISP.
Get him off all newsgroups.
Geez Phil, I never once heard William wish colon cancer on anyone, or call
someone retarded or autistic.
....from completing sentences.Your rapidly degenerating autism and raging paranoia prevents you.
Perhaps, but Bob Carver proved the opposite.
My recollection is that Carver nulled the difference signal between some
highly regarded amps and his own prototype, doing so in order to "voice"
his to imitate theirs. By using (again as I recall) passive reactances, he
was able to get the two transfer functions so similar that their null was
down many tens of dBs.
The outcome of all of this was that no audibly discernible differences
could be reliably reported, at least according to Carver in his claims.
This method obviously did not account for the different dynamic
characteristics of the two amps, such as output transformer saturations
and harmonic spectra / distortion changes over the dynamic range of the
amps.