PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Trevor]

On 19/05/2016 3:51 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 19/05/2016 3:11 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 19/05/2016 6:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**If I had to provide a guess (and it really is only a guess), I would
suspect that at least 50% of listeners clip their amplifiers somewhat
regularly.

If this is the case with high power SS amps, I can't see how they will
be better off with low power valve amps? One answer of course would be
to simply limit the input to the amp so it never clips. A
compressor/peak limiter will be cheaper than a valve amplifier if you
simply want that overload knee.


**_I_ never mentioned "low power valve amps". I see little point in
bothering with any amplifier rated at less than around 50 Watts/channel
in a domestic situation. Certainly those dinky little 5 Watt SET amps
are a joke. And, FWIW, well designed amplifiers already employ 'soft
clipping' systems, regardless of power rating.

"Low power" is a relative term. You quoted an example of a 100W valve
amp whereas one can get a solid state amp with 5 times the power for
similar or less money. Simply no need to ever clip the latter if the
former is powerful enough! But a valve amp with 5 times the power would
be out of the question! And soft clipping systems are a choice, not
something that necessarily defines "well designed" IMO. Most amps that
have them also have a switch to turn them off. (Having the option to
turn it on is not a bad thing though all else being equal.) Or one can
often do the job better with the input signal IMO. Or simply proper use
of the volume/gain control in the first place since unlike live music,
you always know what the maximum input levels are going to be when
playing recorded music.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/05/2016 3:11 PM, Trevor wrote:

On 19/05/2016 6:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**If I had to provide a guess (and it really is only a guess), I would
suspect that at least 50% of listeners clip their amplifiers somewhat
regularly.

If this is the case with high power SS amps, I can't see how they will
be better off with low power valve amps? One answer of course would be
to simply limit the input to the amp so it never clips. A
compressor/peak limiter will be cheaper than a valve amplifier if you
simply want that overload knee.

Trevor.

**_I_ never mentioned "low power valve amps". I see little point in
bothering with any amplifier rated at less than around 50 Watts/channel
in a domestic situation. Certainly those dinky little 5 Watt SET amps
are a joke. And, FWIW, well designed amplifiers already employ 'soft
clipping' systems, regardless of power rating.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor]

On 19/05/2016 7:12 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/05/2016 9:22 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:
However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their
money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker cables,
the worst choice possible.


Only for a few speaker that have a problem, like some ESL's etc.

**Well, yes, but there are *a lot* of ESLs around. Given their cost and
reputation for high sound quality, they tend to be in demand on the used
market. Nonetheless, my point is that Monster Cable™ is the second WORST
speaker cable available (only Naim speaker cable is worse) and that a
VERY economical alternative is readily and easily available. This allows
listeners to use ESLs without major problem and for those who desire it,
very long speaker cables can be used.

IMO you choose *all* system components as necessary. IF I was to buy an
ESL I'd buy appropriate cable. I don't use coax for my speaker cable
though, nor would I buy Monster cable.

Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/


Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

NO mention was made of speaker cables alone.

**This part of the thread started with speaker cables.

"New game in Sydney" tells me it is only about speaker cable??? Nothing
I responded to above says it is only about speaker cable, where did you
get that idea?

I was talking in general
about cables, particularly signal cables which is why I mentioned
sheilding, not something required for speaker cables.

**Not necessarily. I've attended several systems where particularly
heroic methods were required to eliminate 'frame buzz' caused by TV
transmitters. Shielded speaker cables was one of those methods.

Once again VERY FEW speakers would be affected by that, and those with
speakers that are can do whatever they need to rather than everybody else.

Using
zero global NFB amplification was more effective, but more expensive.
That said, the idea of using RG213/U is not specifically because it is
shielded cable, but because it is low inductance.

Right, something that effects only a minority of speakers. Many/most
solid state amps have an inductor at their output already for stability
into capacitive loads. (and you attack Naim for not doing so) The usual
cable inductance is simply not an issue in the vast majority of cases.

But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the
cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.

**No, it is not as simple as that. SOME valve amps are engineered to
deliver quite high levels of distortion, whilst others are engineered to
deliver inaudible levels of distortion.

Not at high power output, and even if it were possible there would be no
point if you couldn't tell the difference for a LOT more expense!

**The Audio Research VT200 exhibits a THD figure of below 0.1% well past
100 Watts:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#3LeThsrZBWluOfYP.97


There are likely to be lots of others, but I can't be bothered looking.
So, yes, it is possible.

Sure, and how much does that amp cost? More than a solid state amp with
FAR more power right? So why not simply use the solid state amp within
it's limits rather than pushing an expensive valve amp beyond its
limits? And have to laugh, ANY solid sate amp with a distortion figure
of <0.1% would be considered crap these days when they are often close
to 1/100th of that. Then there are the noise, frequency response, and a
dozen other parameters to consider where the valve amp always comes out
poorly in comparison.

The catch is where the amplifier
is pushed to it's limits. Many valve amps possess rather graceful
Voltage limiting (clipping) characteristics and rather benign current
limiting artefacts, whilst many SS amps do not.

Which ignores the fact that for less money you simply buy a solid state
amp with far greater power that will never clip for the same or greater
SPL, so as I said the real difference is a preference for those valve
distortions.

**Yes, you can, but there are other issues associated with building such
products. Current demands rise, as power output rises, thus elevating cost.

????? The cost of decent solid sate amps that deliver FAR greater
voltage and current outputs than *any* valve amp is almost always FAR lower!

Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

**The reality is that most valve amp owners buy them because it is a
fashion statement, rather than for any technical or sonic advantages.


Well that too, but IME they do have a preference for the valve (and
vinyl) sound and have convinced themselves it is superior, and sadly
spend much time trying to convince others. :-(

\
**And that is their right.

Their right to choose what THEY want of course, not to continually
sprout BS to everyone else.


> A well setup vinyl system can sound very good indeed.

Absolutely, was happy when that was all we had. Thankfully technology
has now improved and we can get far more actual performance for much
less cost!

Sadly, the cost is much higher than a digital one of similar
performance. Same deal with valves.

Not similar performance at all. Vinyl and valve technology is
*demonstrably* inferior at *any* cost. Personal *preference* for
expensive distortions has absolutely nothing to do with *actual*
"performance".

Trevor.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/05/2016 12:03 PM, Chris wrote:

On 18/05/2016 11:05 PM, keithr wrote:
On 18/05/2016 10:10 PM, felix wrote:

The "Golden ears" set speak of the superior valve sound, but when you
get down to it, an amp should not have a "Sound", the signal coming
out should be exactly what went in except in amplitude.

but that's never achievable in practice

It is perfectly possible to make an audio amplifier with distortion
levels below human perception, and a frequency response encompassing the
entire audible range. That to all intents and purposes is a soundless
amplifier.

And then connect it to transducers that contribute 1% or greater
distortion...

**Or much less:

http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/product-detail.php?pid=11



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:

snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?

**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

The old Power Line™ possessed a lower inductance figure, due it's
superior geometry. I can't give you the precise figure, because I never
got around to measuring the product. It was not on the market for very
long.

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor]

On 19/05/2016 6:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**If I had to provide a guess (and it really is only a guess), I would
suspect that at least 50% of listeners clip their amplifiers somewhat
regularly.

If this is the case with high power SS amps, I can't see how they will
be better off with low power valve amps? One answer of course would be
to simply limit the input to the amp so it never clips. A
compressor/peak limiter will be cheaper than a valve amplifier if you
simply want that overload knee.

Trevor.

 

[keithr]

On 19/05/2016 6:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:

Unless you are a rock guitarist, why would you drive an amp into
overload. If your amp overloads at your desired listening levels, you
need a more powerful amp.

**If I had to provide a guess (and it really is only a guess), I would
suspect that at least 50% of listeners clip their amplifiers somewhat
regularly. Current limiting is more difficult to quantify, without bench
measurements, but I've certainly seen a number of systems where it occurs.

If you are regularly driving your amp into clipping, there seems little
point in spending a lot of money on an ultra low distortion one.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/05/2016 3:45 PM, Trevor wrote:

On 19/05/2016 7:12 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 9:22 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:
However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their
money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the
price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker
cables,
the worst choice possible.


Only for a few speaker that have a problem, like some ESL's etc.

**Well, yes, but there are *a lot* of ESLs around. Given their cost and
reputation for high sound quality, they tend to be in demand on the used
market. Nonetheless, my point is that Monster Cable™ is the second WORST
speaker cable available (only Naim speaker cable is worse) and that a
VERY economical alternative is readily and easily available. This allows
listeners to use ESLs without major problem and for those who desire it,
very long speaker cables can be used.

IMO you choose *all* system components as necessary. IF I was to buy an
ESL I'd buy appropriate cable. I don't use coax for my speaker cable
though, nor would I buy Monster cable.

**RG213/U, or another low inductance speaker cable may be necessary for
long cable runs, even when using 'normal' impedance speakers.

Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers),
then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/



Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

NO mention was made of speaker cables alone.

**This part of the thread started with speaker cables.


"New game in Sydney" tells me it is only about speaker cable??? Nothing
I responded to above says it is only about speaker cable, where did you
get that idea?

**I have no idea how the speaker cable thread became tangled with this
thread.

I was talking in general
about cables, particularly signal cables which is why I mentioned
sheilding, not something required for speaker cables.

**Not necessarily. I've attended several systems where particularly
heroic methods were required to eliminate 'frame buzz' caused by TV
transmitters. Shielded speaker cables was one of those methods.


Once again VERY FEW speakers would be affected by that, and those with
speakers that are can do whatever they need to rather than everybody else.

**The frame buzz has nothing to do with the speaker system. It is
totally dominated by the amplification. High global NFB amplifiers may
be severely effected, whilst low, or zero global NFB amplifiers may not be.

Using
zero global NFB amplification was more effective, but more expensive.
That said, the idea of using RG213/U is not specifically because it is
shielded cable, but because it is low inductance.

Right, something that effects only a minority of speakers.

**Again: It has NOTHING to do with the speaker system.

Many/most

solid state amps have an inductor at their output already for stability
into capacitive loads. (and you attack Naim for not doing so) The usual
cable inductance is simply not an issue in the vast majority of cases.

**An output inductor may pose an additional problem, when using ESL or
other speakers with low impedance characteristics at high frequencies.
The best amplifiers are stable, without resorting to the use of output
inductors.

But they certainly aren't any better than many others, and not as good
as some. And there *definitely* is a *quality* difference between
cables, not usually much if any sound difference though, until the
cheap
ones stop working. The sound difference then is rather large!
There CAN be sound differences though like microphonics, hum from poor
shielding etc.


Just like the bullshit with valve amplifiers. There are many
fuckwits
who think they have 'golden ears', in fact they are just being
conned
and are unable to understand why. Sad but true.

I have to disagree in principle about valve amps, I do have a couple
myself but my favourite amps are all SS. All depends on personal
preference. I learned long ago that I'm not seeking truly accurate
reproduction,

Precisely. Valve amps have their own distortions which some people
find
more pleasing than an amp without it. Simple as that.

**No, it is not as simple as that. SOME valve amps are engineered to
deliver quite high levels of distortion, whilst others are
engineered to
deliver inaudible levels of distortion.

Not at high power output, and even if it were possible there would be no
point if you couldn't tell the difference for a LOT more expense!

**The Audio Research VT200 exhibits a THD figure of below 0.1% well past
100 Watts:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#3LeThsrZBWluOfYP.97



There are likely to be lots of others, but I can't be bothered looking.
So, yes, it is possible.

Sure, and how much does that amp cost?

**A lot. But that is not the point. I provided it to prove that a good
quality valve amp can provide inaudible levels of distortion, at
reasonable power output. I have NEVER denied that building valve amps
will always be more expensive than building equivalent SS ones.


More than a solid state amp with
> FAR more power right?

**In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. Here are some SS amps which
cost more (in Dollars/Watt):

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/806halcro/index.html#ckShOGrgEQ0dWz7g.97

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/1004halcro/index.html#m7dQApH2vgUizzhV.97

http://www.stereophile.com/content/luxman-b-1000f-monoblock-power-amplifier#vth8LSKvzU2sREZM.97

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/115/index.html#V8lYvxI7jRCEWZJL.97

http://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-reference-9011-monoblock-amplifier-specifications#Ts4Jpd3DfLWPbOxG.97

And, who can forget the biggest con-artists in the audiophile world:

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/120147/index.html#xSZj88hxW4D0gutx.97

The Audio Research VT200 doesn't look too bad after all.


So why not simply use the solid state amp within

it's limits rather than pushing an expensive valve amp beyond its
limits?

**An excellent idea. In theory. In practice, it often doesn't work that
way.


And have to laugh, ANY solid sate amp with a distortion figure

of <0.1% would be considered crap these days when they are often close
to 1/100th of that. Then there are the noise, frequency response, and a
dozen other parameters to consider where the valve amp always comes out
poorly in comparison.

**Again, I direct you to the Audio Research VT200:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#68r6B0kToj0xk4q5.97

Sure, the amp is far from 'perfect', but it demonstrates no obvious
audible flaws.

Would I own one? Not a chance. For the same reasons I wouldn't own an
Italian car.

The catch is where the amplifier
is pushed to it's limits. Many valve amps possess rather graceful
Voltage limiting (clipping) characteristics and rather benign current
limiting artefacts, whilst many SS amps do not.

Which ignores the fact that for less money you simply buy a solid state
amp with far greater power that will never clip for the same or greater
SPL, so as I said the real difference is a preference for those valve
distortions.

**Yes, you can, but there are other issues associated with building such
products. Current demands rise, as power output rises, thus elevating
cost.

????? The cost of decent solid sate amps that deliver FAR greater
voltage and current outputs than *any* valve amp is almost always FAR
lower!

**Nope. See above examples. I could find many, many more if you wish.

Nothing wrong with that, but like vinyl freaks, I just wish they'd
shut
up and stop pretending it is somehow better, rather than simply a
minority preference they get to have. (and can keep IMO

**The reality is that most valve amp owners buy them because it is a
fashion statement, rather than for any technical or sonic advantages.


Well that too, but IME they do have a preference for the valve (and
vinyl) sound and have convinced themselves it is superior, and sadly
spend much time trying to convince others. :-(

\
**And that is their right.

Their right to choose what THEY want of course, not to continually
sprout BS to everyone else.

**I could say the same thing about religious nutters too. They're far
more dangerous and dangerously unbalanced than some poor bugger who
wants to play LPs.

A well setup vinyl system can sound very good indeed.

Absolutely, was happy when that was all we had. Thankfully technology
has now improved and we can get far more actual performance for much
less cost!

**NO doubt.

Sadly, the cost is much higher than a digital one of similar
performance. Same deal with valves.

Not similar performance at all. Vinyl and valve technology is
*demonstrably* inferior at *any* cost. Personal *preference* for
expensive distortions has absolutely nothing to do with *actual*
"performance".

**Funnily enough, I've played LPs to people who thought they were
listening to CDs. Carefully chosen material, played on a good turntable
can offer surprisingly good results. That said, I very rarely bother
with LPs any longer for a bunch of reasons. As for valve amps, I have
taken the time to allow myself to be subjected to several blind
listening tests with valve amps. In one instance, the result was quite
sobering. I listened to two SS amps and one valve amp. I was certain
that the worst sounding amp was the valve amp. It wasn't. I ranked it as
my second preference. A well designed and built valve amplifier can
provide excellent sound quality.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 19/05/2016 11:16 PM, keithr wrote:

On 19/05/2016 6:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:

Unless you are a rock guitarist, why would you drive an amp into
overload. If your amp overloads at your desired listening levels, you
need a more powerful amp.

**If I had to provide a guess (and it really is only a guess), I would
suspect that at least 50% of listeners clip their amplifiers somewhat
regularly. Current limiting is more difficult to quantify, without bench
measurements, but I've certainly seen a number of systems where it
occurs.

If you are regularly driving your amp into clipping, there seems little
point in spending a lot of money on an ultra low distortion one.

**"Somewhat regularly" does not mean "all the time".

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor]

On 20/05/2016 9:25 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 19/05/2016 3:45 PM, Trevor wrote:
IMO you choose *all* system components as necessary. IF I was to buy an
ESL I'd buy appropriate cable. I don't use coax for my speaker cable
though, nor would I buy Monster cable.

**RG213/U, or another low inductance speaker cable may be necessary for
long cable runs, even when using 'normal' impedance speakers.

Have done runs up to about 10 metres without any problem using normal
amps, cables and speakers. Any further and I'd just move the amp instead.

**Not necessarily. I've attended several systems where particularly
heroic methods were required to eliminate 'frame buzz' caused by TV
transmitters. Shielded speaker cables was one of those methods.


Once again VERY FEW speakers would be affected by that, and those with
speakers that are can do whatever they need to rather than everybody
else.

**The frame buzz has nothing to do with the speaker system.

Or the speaker cable in any amp with output filters. ie most of them.

It is
totally dominated by the amplification. High global NFB amplifiers may
be severely effected, whilst low, or zero global NFB amplifiers may not be.

You mean poorly shielded and filtered amplifiers may be affected. ZGNFB
design will reduce the problem of course.

Using
zero global NFB amplification was more effective, but more expensive.
That said, the idea of using RG213/U is not specifically because it is
shielded cable, but because it is low inductance.

Right, something that effects only a minority of speakers.

**Again: It has NOTHING to do with the speaker system.

In a purely resistive load higher inductance cable should reduce the
problem, not make it worse. As long as you don't coil them up anyway.
A shield will help of course if it's earthed.

Many/most
solid state amps have an inductor at their output already for stability
into capacitive loads. (and you attack Naim for not doing so) The usual
cable inductance is simply not an issue in the vast majority of cases.

**An output inductor may pose an additional problem, when using ESL or
other speakers with low impedance characteristics at high frequencies.
The best amplifiers are stable, without resorting to the use of output
inductors.

Yet you happily accept valve amps with output transformers!

**The Audio Research VT200 exhibits a THD figure of below 0.1% well past
100 Watts:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#3LeThsrZBWluOfYP.97

There are likely to be lots of others, but I can't be bothered looking.
So, yes, it is possible.

Sure, and how much does that amp cost?

**A lot. But that is not the point.

Of course it is. As I said simply buy a bigger SS amp for less and the
clipping issue goes away.

I provided it to prove that a good
quality valve amp can provide inaudible levels of distortion, at
reasonable power output. I have NEVER denied that building valve amps
will always be more expensive than building equivalent SS ones.

Yet you claimed a soft knee was a benefit of valve amps. As I keep
pointing out it ISN'T if you factor in cost!

More than a solid state amp with
FAR more power right?

**In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. Here are some SS amps which
cost more (in Dollars/Watt):

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/806halcro/index.html#ckShOGrgEQ0dWz7g.97


http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/1004halcro/index.html#m7dQApH2vgUizzhV.97
http://www.stereophile.com/content/luxman-b-1000f-monoblock-power-amplifier#vth8LSKvzU2sREZM.97
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/115/index.html#V8lYvxI7jRCEWZJL.97
http://www.stereophile.com/content/mbl-reference-9011-monoblock-amplifier-specifications#Ts4Jpd3DfLWPbOxG.97
And, who can forget the biggest con-artists in the audiophile world:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/120147/index.html#xSZj88hxW4D0gutx.97

The Audio Research VT200 doesn't look too bad after all.

You mean because you can find bigger rip off prices for a few SS amps, a
rip off price for a valve amp is OK? So let me ask this, do YOU own any
of those listed? I sure don't!

So why not simply use the solid state amp within
it's limits rather than pushing an expensive valve amp beyond its
limits?

**An excellent idea. In theory. In practice, it often doesn't work that
way.

Works just fine for me!!!!
I suggest if it doesn't work for you then that is YOUR fault.

And have to laugh, ANY solid sate amp with a distortion figure
of <0.1% would be considered crap these days when they are often close
to 1/100th of that. Then there are the noise, frequency response, and a
dozen other parameters to consider where the valve amp always comes out
poorly in comparison.

**Again, I direct you to the Audio Research VT200:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audio-research-reference-1-preamplifier-vt200-power-amplifier-measurements-audio-research-vt#68r6B0kToj0xk4q5.97


Sure, the amp is far from 'perfect', but it demonstrates no obvious
audible flaws.

Nor do the *vast* majority of SS amps costing *FAR* less. So once again,
what is the point?

Would I own one? Not a chance. For the same reasons I wouldn't own an
Italian car.

If money was no object I'd buy a Ferrari long before I'd buy a valve amp.

**Yes, you can, but there are other issues associated with building such
products. Current demands rise, as power output rises, thus elevating
cost.

????? The cost of decent solid sate amps that deliver FAR greater
voltage and current outputs than *any* valve amp is almost always FAR
lower!

**Nope. See above examples. I could find many, many more if you wish.

Above examples prove absolutely nothing!!! You simply did not list any
of the huge amount of low cost SS amps with far more power that cost far
less and also have "no audible flaws" How disingenuous an argument!
It's like saying a Toyota Prius is better than a petrol car because it
costs less than a Rolls Royce!

Their right to choose what THEY want of course, not to continually
sprout BS to everyone else.

**I could say the same thing about religious nutters too. They're far
more dangerous and dangerously unbalanced than some poor bugger who
wants to play LPs.

No argument there, but hardly relevant.

A well setup vinyl system can sound very good indeed.

Absolutely, was happy when that was all we had. Thankfully technology
has now improved and we can get far more actual performance for much
less cost!

**NO doubt.



Sadly, the cost is much higher than a digital one of similar
performance. Same deal with valves.

Not similar performance at all. Vinyl and valve technology is
*demonstrably* inferior at *any* cost. Personal *preference* for
expensive distortions has absolutely nothing to do with *actual*
"performance".

**Funnily enough, I've played LPs to people who thought they were
listening to CDs.

And vice versa. Most people don't have a clue if they can't see.

Carefully chosen material, played on a good turntable
can offer surprisingly good results. That said, I very rarely bother
with LPs any longer for a bunch of reasons.

Me either, even though I still have two expensive turntables. Would only
get worse if I had to replace cartridges all the time as well :-(
But the convenience aspect is the main difference for me. So pleased not
to have to deal with vinyl all the time like I did 30+ years ago!

As for valve amps, I have
taken the time to allow myself to be subjected to several blind
listening tests with valve amps. In one instance, the result was quite
sobering. I listened to two SS amps and one valve amp. I was certain
that the worst sounding amp was the valve amp. It wasn't. I ranked it as
my second preference. A well designed and built valve amplifier can
provide excellent sound quality.

Of course it can, at a much higher cost. (and listing a few overpriced
SS amps proves nothing when good ones ARE available for far less)
Not to mention cost of maintenance, new valves etc. that are not
required for SS.

Trevor.

 

[Trevor]

On 20/05/2016 1:33 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 19/05/2016 11:16 PM, keithr wrote:
On 19/05/2016 6:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:

Unless you are a rock guitarist, why would you drive an amp into
overload. If your amp overloads at your desired listening levels, you
need a more powerful amp.

**If I had to provide a guess (and it really is only a guess), I would
suspect that at least 50% of listeners clip their amplifiers somewhat
regularly. Current limiting is more difficult to quantify, without bench
measurements, but I've certainly seen a number of systems where it
occurs.

If you are regularly driving your amp into clipping, there seems little
point in spending a lot of money on an ultra low distortion one.

**"Somewhat regularly" does not mean "all the time".

If you are "somewhat regularly" driving your amp into clipping, you
either need a bigger one, or learn how to use the gain controls.

Trevor.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

--
\_(ツ)_

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/05/2016 10:24 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

**Don't need to. RG213/U is precisely specified. It is a professional
product, used by professionals. As such, it's parameters MUST be
accurately specified.

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

**Resistance will be much higher than RG213/U and a PITA to terminate.
Otherwise, inductance should be reasonably low. None can match Goertz
though.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:32:36 AM UTC+8, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 20/05/2016 10:24 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinchATgmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

**Don't need to. RG213/U is precisely specified. It is a professional
product, used by professionals. As such, it's parameters MUST be
accurately specified.


FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

**Resistance will be much higher than RG213/U and a PITA to terminate.
Otherwise, inductance should be reasonably low. None can match Goertz
though.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Can you provide a link to a spec sheet that quotes RG213 Inductance?

As you say, it is designed for professional use. It is however designed for HF and VHF applications. At audio frequencies the conditions are very different.

 

[Clocky]

On 19/05/2016 4:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:
On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their
money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers), then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/


Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

At what length do the characteristics of speaker cable become
significant?

**It depends entirely on the impedance characteristics of the speaker
system. I've measured audibly significant differences at lengths of less
than 3 Metres (the typical length used in many systems).

How do you determine them to be audibly significant differences?

You can actually hear the difference can you?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 21/05/2016 11:40 AM, Clocky wrote:

On 19/05/2016 4:56 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 18/05/2016 8:15 PM, keithr wrote:
On 18/05/2016 6:53 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/05/2016 5:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
On 14/05/2016 6:52 AM, Je�us wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:48:23 +0200, BuckyBalls <"The Pres"@yahoo.com
wrote:
On 13/05/2016 9:05 AM, j@j.j wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:56:35 +1000, felix <me@nothere.invalid
wrote:

However, Monster cables are regarded as the best available, and
always
have been

ROTFL. Not even close.

Monster cables etc. are meant to separate audiofools from their
money.

Pretty much.

"pretty much" implies there might be some other reason as well?
Fact is there is little wrong with Monster cables other than the
price.

**Incorrect. There are two major parameters of interest WRT speaker
cables and a handful of minor ones. Those two characteristics are
resistance (R) and inductance (L). Monster Cable™ exhibits reasonably
low resistance, but quite high inductance. Except for Naim speaker
cables, Monster Cable is, along with all 'figure 8' type speaker
cables,
the worst choice possible. Naim cable is worse, due to the incompetent
design employed by Naim for their amplifiers, which demands that highly
inductive speaker cables be used. That said, if Monster Cable™ provides
adequate performance for a given system, then some 4mm mains cable will
provide superior performance for less money. However, if genuinely
superior performance is required (say, for electrostatic speakers),
then
this:

http://www.altronics.com.au/p/w4920-rg213u-50-ohm-low-loss-coaxial-cable/



Is a much better choice. It offers a usefully lower inductance figure.
Cost is reasonable.

At what length do the characteristics of speaker cable become
significant?

**It depends entirely on the impedance characteristics of the speaker
system. I've measured audibly significant differences at lengths of less
than 3 Metres (the typical length used in many systems).


How do you determine them to be audibly significant differences?

**Any difference which can be measured within the audible spectrum,
which can be determined to be audibly significant.

You can actually hear the difference can you?

**Attempt to personalise the argument noted.

Yes, I have heard the difference between speaker cables under certain
circumstances. As have many of my clients. It's why I suggest RG213/U
when the situation demands it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 21/05/2016 1:40 PM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:32:36 AM UTC+8, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 20/05/2016 10:24 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinchATgmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster
Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the
original Power Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of
approximately 0.75uH/Metre. RG213/U exhibits an inductance of
approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

**Don't need to. RG213/U is precisely specified. It is a
professional product, used by professionals. As such, it's
parameters MUST be accurately specified.


FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my
knowledge) is Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around
0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not
that it's likely to make much difference)

**Resistance will be much higher than RG213/U and a PITA to
terminate. Otherwise, inductance should be reasonably low. None can
match Goertz though.



-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Can you provide a link to a spec sheet that quotes RG213 Inductance?

**Of course. You could find it for yourself, if you really wanted to:

http://www.belden.com/techdatas/metric/8267.pdf

Can you point me to a similar spec sheet for ANY Monster Cable™ product?

As you say, it is designed for professional use.

**Indeed. As are many types of cables. All professional cables are
accompanied by proper and complete specifications. Something many
audiophile cables lack. Audiophile cables tend to be accompanied by
complete bullshit, a lack of complete data and fancy (and expensive)
advertising. RG213/U lacks such things.

Do you know what the precise resistance and inductance figures of
Monster Cable™ are? Do Monster Cable™ publish that data? All proper,
professional cable manufacturers publish the data for their products. I
imagine Monster Cable™ do likewise, but I am unable to locate that
information.


It is however
> designed for HF and VHF applications.

**Your point being?

At audio frequencies the
> conditions are very different.

**For the cables under discussion, the differences are utterly
irrelevant. What is required for audio speaker cables is:

* Low resistance.
* Low inductance.

RG213/U satisfies both requirements. In spades.

It offers additional benefits:

* It is very inexpensive and easily available from many sources and
manufacturers.
* It uses PE insulation.
* It is quite stiff (which can be a disadvantage in some systems).



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 20/05/16 22:24, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the original Power
Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.75uH/Metre.
RG213/U exhibits an inductance of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY
useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my knowledge) is
Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around 0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not that
it's likely to make much difference)

What sort of inductance is achievable like that?

Clifford Heath.

 

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 1:29:29 PM UTC+8, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 21/05/2016 1:40 PM, dave.goldfinchATgmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:32:36 AM UTC+8, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 20/05/2016 10:24 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinchATgmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for Monster
Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the
original Power Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of
approximately 0.75uH/Metre. RG213/U exhibits an inductance of
approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

**Don't need to. RG213/U is precisely specified. It is a
professional product, used by professionals. As such, it's
parameters MUST be accurately specified.


FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my
knowledge) is Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around
0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker (not
that it's likely to make much difference)

**Resistance will be much higher than RG213/U and a PITA to
terminate. Otherwise, inductance should be reasonably low. None can
match Goertz though.



-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Can you provide a link to a spec sheet that quotes RG213 Inductance?

**Of course. You could find it for yourself, if you really wanted to:

http://www.belden.com/techdatas/metric/8267.pdf

Can you point me to a similar spec sheet for ANY Monster Cable™ product?


As you say, it is designed for professional use.

**Indeed. As are many types of cables. All professional cables are
accompanied by proper and complete specifications. Something many
audiophile cables lack. Audiophile cables tend to be accompanied by
complete bullshit, a lack of complete data and fancy (and expensive)
advertising. RG213/U lacks such things.

Do you know what the precise resistance and inductance figures of
Monster Cable™ are? Do Monster Cable™ publish that data? All proper,
professional cable manufacturers publish the data for their products. I
imagine Monster Cable™ do likewise, but I am unable to locate that
information.


It is however
designed for HF and VHF applications.

**Your point being?

At audio frequencies the
conditions are very different.

**For the cables under discussion, the differences are utterly
irrelevant. What is required for audio speaker cables is:

* Low resistance.
* Low inductance.

RG213/U satisfies both requirements. In spades.

It offers additional benefits:

* It is very inexpensive and easily available from many sources and
manufacturers.
* It uses PE insulation.
* It is quite stiff (which can be a disadvantage in some systems).



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

As I posted earlier, I have no knowledge of Monster Cables nor would I ever consider wasting money on fancy speaker cables. I would bet that in a blind test between a reasonably heavy gauge figure 8 cable and RG213 in a typical domestic setup, there would be very few, if any, people who could distinguish between them.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 21/05/2016 5:23 PM, dave.goldfinch@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 1:29:29 PM UTC+8, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 21/05/2016 1:40 PM, dave.goldfinchATgmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:32:36 AM UTC+8, Trevor Wilson
wrote:
On 20/05/2016 10:24 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2016-05-19, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
On 19/05/2016 11:54 AM, dave.goldfinchATgmail.com wrote:
snip

Can you give figures for the inductance/metre for
Monster Cable and also for RG213?


**Monster Cable™ (all speaker cable variants, except the
original Power Line™ - NLA) exhibits an inductance of
approximately 0.75uH/Metre. RG213/U exhibits an inductance
of approximately 0.23uH/Metre. A VERY useful reduction.

how did you measure inductance on the RG213/U ?

**Don't need to. RG213/U is precisely specified. It is a
professional product, used by professionals. As such, it's
parameters MUST be accurately specified.


FWIW: The best speaker cable available (to the best of my
knowledge) is Goertz MI-1, with an inductance of around
0.012uH/Metre!

a 15-way ribbon connected alternatively

(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)(+)(-)

should be a pretty good match or a standard 8 ohm speaker
(not that it's likely to make much difference)

**Resistance will be much higher than RG213/U and a PITA to
terminate. Otherwise, inductance should be reasonably low. None
can match Goertz though.



-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Can you provide a link to a spec sheet that quotes RG213
Inductance?

**Of course. You could find it for yourself, if you really wanted
to:

http://www.belden.com/techdatas/metric/8267.pdf

Can you point me to a similar spec sheet for ANY Monster Cable™
product?


As you say, it is designed for professional use.

**Indeed. As are many types of cables. All professional cables are
accompanied by proper and complete specifications. Something many
audiophile cables lack. Audiophile cables tend to be accompanied
by complete bullshit, a lack of complete data and fancy (and
expensive) advertising. RG213/U lacks such things.

Do you know what the precise resistance and inductance figures of
Monster Cable™ are? Do Monster Cable™ publish that data? All
proper, professional cable manufacturers publish the data for their
products. I imagine Monster Cable™ do likewise, but I am unable to
locate that information.


It is however
designed for HF and VHF applications.

**Your point being?

At audio frequencies the
conditions are very different.

**For the cables under discussion, the differences are utterly
irrelevant. What is required for audio speaker cables is:

* Low resistance. * Low inductance.

RG213/U satisfies both requirements. In spades.

It offers additional benefits:

* It is very inexpensive and easily available from many sources and
manufacturers. * It uses PE insulation. * It is quite stiff (which
can be a disadvantage in some systems).



-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

As I posted earlier, I have no knowledge of Monster Cables nor would
I ever consider wasting money on fancy speaker cables. I would bet
that in a blind test between a reasonably heavy gauge figure 8 cable
and RG213 in a typical domestic setup, there would be very few, if
any, people who could distinguish between them.

**Oh goodie. A bet. Finally. Someone who is willing to put their money
where their mouth is. Name the amount you wish to wager, and, provided
you make it worth my while, I will happily empty your wallet.

BTW: A simple 'thank you' is all I require for digging up the
information you could have easily located yourself.

Additionally, since I answered your questions, it would seem only fair
that you respond to mine. Or is that asking too much.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus