or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › speaker cables and jumpers vs bi-wiring
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

speaker cables and jumpers vs bi-wiring - Page 6

post #151 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Excellent. Then we are on the same page Raife. Cognizance of these facts is essential when dealing with these subjects, rejection of them would be symptomatic of Audiophile disorder or similar afflictions.

AJ, I notice that you take every opportunity to say something derogatory about audiophiles. This is a pattern that I noticed back in 2009 when I became acquainted with you as evidenced by this post from the Parts Express Tech Talk forum:

AJPEProfile.jpg

AJPEForum2009.jpg

You seem to have a extreme disrespect for all audiophiles, yet on your speaker company website (http://soundfieldaudio.net/Home.html), you make the following curious comment:

"Our first product has been launched, the Monitor 1, after the overwhelmingly positive reviews from seasoned audiophiles, at Capital Audiofest 2011."

I don't understand the apparent discrepancy between your mocking discourse toward audiophiles on Internet forums, yet you welcome their opinions, and I expect also their CASH, when it comes to marketing your speakers. If you have any audiophile customers, do you express to them in person how you really feel about them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Which of course accounts for the above factors. Great, I'll look into your newly proposed methods. Obviously new, since they were no where to be found in that 2003 link. Have you been consulting with psycho-acousticians being that you are an EE?

It is incredible that you think one post made in 2003 describes the totality of my experience in audio evaluation. I hope you don't take a similarly narrow-minded attitude when designing your speakers. To answer your question, yes I did consult with psycho-acousticians.

I would put the same question to you. Did you, as a stereo speaker designer, consult with psycho-acousticians?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Of course it did! Being an EE or MD or whatever, doesn't exempt one whatsoever. "It" being the very same imagination, placebo effect and personal bias you acknowledge, which is why I pondered why you would call it an "experiment" earlier. I mistakenly thought you meant an audibility experiment, but I'm clear now you wanted to show how easy it is demonstrate imagination, placebo effect and personal bias leading to experimental error. Bravo, you did well. Very amusing commentary too as to how the imagination can run wild during these causal listening/viewing/knowing events.smile.gif

When you attend Capital Audiofest this year and demonstrate your speakers, I think you should amuse your audience with some anecdotes of the validated imagination, placebo effect and personal bias of audiophiles. One of my friends met you at last year's Capital Audiofest. He said you actually were very cordial and professional in person, with none of the braggadocio and constantly derisive behavior toward audiophiles that you display on the Internet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

I'll take a look, but what a bizarre place to put it. Why do you cite IEEE literature for Otala, TIM, isolation effects etc, the use some sort of cooking site for your work? Does it make the IEEE type papers, like Otala, suspect? Was Otalas TIM listening methods valid and consistent with your methods? If not, why are you citing them...or any IEEE "audio system" related papers?

Read the title of the journal. Next, read about the purpose of the journal. I wrote a paper about the application of sensory science principles to audio evaluation and I submitted it to a premier sensory science journal. It is amazing that you consider that bizarre.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

But that doesn't stop you from implying that Tiptoes "audibility" are anything but an example of imagination, placebo effect and personal bias can lead to experimental error? Hmmm, there is another EE here who you remind me of greatly.

If someone says your speakers sound great, should I accuse them of imagination, placebo effect, personal bias and common sense? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to buy a speaker from an established manufacturer with a solid record of quality and customer service?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

I see. Do you think these imagination, placebo effect and personal bias artifacts you "heard" with the Adcom are tied to the price? Or strictly the "construction standards", whatever than means?

Actually, I did not buy the Tiptoes, they were given to me. If you, as a speaker manufacturer, are not familiar with the concept of "construction standards", I feel sorry for your customers.

Since you were not present when I did the evaluation of the amplifier's sound improvement with the Tiptoes, it is presumptive of you to categorize it as imagination, placebo effect and personal bias is it not?

Do you think the "seasoned audiophiles" (I will refrain from making a joke about spices here) who gave your Monitor 1 "overwhelming positive reviews" were suffering from imagination, placebo effect, personal bias, and lack of common sense? What assurance can you give that the opinions of these "seasoned audiophiles" were accurate and that others will hear the same good sound they heard?
post #152 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Given the audible and technically egregious levels of nonlinear distortion and noise that are inherent in the recording and playback of LPs, it is hard to comprehend how the detection of such exceptionally low levels of distortion could be accomplished using them.

Hi Arnold. See if any of the original authors are still around. Perhaps they can assist you with your comprehension. Speaking of reading comprehension....

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The above is completely false in both its spirit and the details. The Bell system had absolutely nothing to do with the development of ABX. ABX was not developed for the purpose of "...evaluating simple bandlimited monophonic signals". All but one of the papers cited as support for the above paragaphs predate the JAES article that is generally considered to be the paper that introduced ABC by a decade or more. The paper later on cites that paper, so the author cannot claim ignorance.

What truth can come out of so many false claims?

If you go back and carefully re-read what I wrote and what you quoted, you will find that I never said, or even implied, that the ABX protocol was developed at Bell Labs. I specifically said that Bell Labs scientists used the ABX protocol to evaluate telephone systems. The point was that these scientists extensively used ABX for voice circuit testing, but abandoned it for stereo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

But we are talking about audible performance here. The electrical performance would change if you moved to 8AWG instead of 14AWG. Again what point are you trying to make with this red herring?[/b]

For the last time, the point is that you insisted that the jumper point did not make an electrical difference. You trying to drag wire gauge into this is comical and desperate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

I was? I don't remember being locked out of that thread. I remember making a bunch of people look like buffoons. To the point that Bob Lee at QSC audio likened me to Copernicus walking through an astrologers convention.[/b]

Oh, my mistake. You were locked out of the forum. Please pardon the error.

jinjuku-ClubPolkProfile-s.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

No you offered to totally change the cable challenge. It isn't what I was offering therefore declined. Again, I made my point quite succinctly. A point that still gets traction to this day of showing that when people faith based beliefs are challenged in a way that takes away any possible argument they could bring up about the 'duress' of testing that they quickly wilt.

Your statement below, from the Audioholics forum, which provides much insight into your true character and motives, indicates that you did not join the Polk community with honest intentions and pure thoughts. Your goal was to be a "thorn in the side" of the membership. As this attitude was discerned by many of the members, is it any wonder why they would not want to participate in your trial?

JinjukuCPBanAnnouncement-s.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Yep and your post was 10 weeks after my initial offer. Two and a half months was more than ample time. Heck four weeks was more than ample time.

Well, here you are still whining, moaning and grumbling about it over 1.5 years later on several Internet forums. If you still feel raw about it a year and seven months later, ten weeks should have been insignificant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You and I are talking about audible performance, but I'm unsure that our correspondent is talking about anything but measurable performance.

No, don't assume that. I firmly believe in measurable performance. Here are a few recent examples:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?132437-Upgrade-High-Frequency-Inductors-For-The-SDA-SRS-1.2TL

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?127756-Upgrade-Low-Frequency-Inductors-For-the-SDA-SRS-1.2TL&p=1699080#post1699080

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?126544-Studies-On-Residential-Power-Line-Noise-Part-10-PS-Audio-P10-AC-Regenerator
post #153 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

Do you think the "seasoned audiophiles" (I will refrain from making a joke about spices here) who gave your Monitor 1 "overwhelming positive reviews" were suffering from imagination, placebo effect, personal bias, and lack of common sense? What assurance can you give that the opinions of these "seasoned audiophiles" were accurate and that others will hear the same good sound they heard?

When I brought the SFM1's to the Parts Express GTG last November it was because we had about 14 other speakers in the room. Along with some well respected designers like Wolf, Taterworks etc...

Plus there is an inherent difference: Audibility and perception of a speakers sound field is much more readily apparent. I can tell you 10 out of 10 times my El90's, ZDT3.5's, Statements, XLS Encores blind. Not only that there is a change but which is which.
post #154 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

Oh, my mistake. You were locked out of the forum. Please pardon the error.

Uh... Months later. I think the latest absurdity that I had to correct was TX Coastals (the guys in AV sales surprisingly) assertion that you couldn't run 4 ohm surrounds off of a receiver. At the end of the burn in smack down I delivered I had already PM'd a few members letting them know that I was certain my time at PF was coming to a close. Hardly a scarlet letter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

Your statement below, from the Audioholics forum, which provides much insight into your true character and motives, indicates that you did not join the Polk community with honest intentions and pure thoughts. Your goal was to be a "thorn in the side" of the membership. As this attitude was discerned by many of the members, is it any wonder why they would not want to participate in your trial?

Which after seeing the poor advice and total misunderstanding of all things audio at PF I still stand by that comment. You guys are dangerous to the uninitiated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

Well, here you are still whining, moaning and grumbling about it over 1.5 years later on several Internet forums. If you still feel raw about it a year and seven months later, ten weeks should have been insignificant.

That isn't how I would characterize my ongoing amusement and laughter. Why don't you ask Halo71 and Nooshinjohn how their recent forays here went. They got their ears pinned back by several and I haven't seen them around since. Telling you utter BS and voodoo isn't going to fly around here and you ain't got the chops to back it up.

But rather then allow you to start this very abrupt change of subject in attempt to get the spotlight off of your rantings how about we get back on topic?
Edited by Jinjuku - 7/2/12 at 1:56pm
post #155 of 261
Quote:
At the end of the burn in smack down I delivered I had already PM'd a few members letting them know that I was certain my time at PF was coming to a close.
And you should wear that badge proudly, my friend. I tried to hang at PF a bit when I was selling an old pair of Polks, and good lord, I think the typical member's IQ was lower than the wire gauge of his speaker cables.
post #156 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Along with some well respected designers like Wolf, Taterworks etc..

Name dropping....strike one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

At the end of the burn in smack down I delivered.......

Internet tough guy...strike two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

They got their ears pinned back by several and I haven't seen them around since.

It could also be that they found themselves in the company of too many (Internet tough) guys who had been kicked out of respectable corporate sponsored forums like PE and CP. Delusional...strike three.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Hardly a scarlet letter.

BANNED is actually six scarlet letters. Can't count...strike four.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

You guys are dangerous to the uninitiated.

Paranoid...strike five.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

But rather then allow you to start this very abrupt change of subject in attempt to get the spotlight off of your rantings how about we get back on topic?

Go back through the last couple of pages of this thread and you will plainly see that:

A. It was YOU who brought up the Club Polk stuff, wire gauge, power supplies, etc.
B. It was Arnie who brought up my other writings...and misrepresenting them at that.
C. It was AJ who brought up the supposedly aural hallucinations of all audiophiles.

I was just indulging you guy's apparent need to discuss other subjects.

Projection...strike six...I'm out!

As far as the topic. I have said all I wanted to say on biwiring. I take some consolation that you learned that moving an electrical junction point in a ciruit can change electrical properties.

It has been a great privilege to discuss audio topics with such distinguished gentlemen on a scientifically oriented forum such as this one. Thank you for the opportunity. I have now unsubscribed from this thread, but I hope you gentlemen will carry on the discussion about biwiring. Perhaps through your continued discussion, there will be some significant scientific "breakthroughs" on this controversial topic.

Good luck! smile.gif


mad.gif You are just running off because you don't want to get your ears pinned back!

Whatever dude.~ DK
post #157 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

AJ, I notice that you take every opportunity to say something derogatory about audiophiles.
"Audiophiles" are a monolithic entity? Who knew? You (imagine) speaking for them all Raife, or just yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

This is a pattern that I noticed back in 2009 when I became acquainted with you as evidenced by this post from the Parts Express Tech Talk forum:
Quite bizarre that you link to another persons post not mentioning you. But then again, when your buywiring/"alternate" listening methods come under scrutiny that make you look absurdly foolish, any sort of misdirection will do yes? smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

You seem to have a extreme disrespect for all audiophiles
Which has what to do with buywires or woo-woo listening methods posted on cooking sites???
Oh wait, I get it, never mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

I don't understand the apparent discrepancy between your mocking discourse toward audiophiles on Internet forums, yet you welcome their opinions, and I expect also their CASH, when it comes to marketing your speakers.
You are (unsurprisingly) sadly misinformed. I only accept Paypal, no cash. I knew about your EE title, but I had no idea you were a spokesman for all audiophiles. Are they aware of this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

It is incredible that you think one post made in 2003 describes the totality of my experience in audio evaluation.
Strawman, never said that. Btw, you linked that thread, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

I hope you don't take a similarly narrow-minded attitude when designing your speakers.
It isn't "open minded" to reject science, nor make a fool of yourself with pathological science methods. Know what I mean? wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

To answer your question, yes I did consult with psycho-acousticians.
I would put the same question to you. Did you, as a stereo speaker designer, consult with psycho-acousticians?
Sane ones? They post all their stuff on the cooking network, or IEEE review types sites?
You equate your "alternate" methods paper somehow with me making speakers? Enjoy Red Herrings do we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

When you attend Capital Audiofest this year and demonstrate your speakers, I think you should amuse your audience with some anecdotes of the validated imagination, placebo effect and personal bias of audiophiles. One of my friends met you at last year's Capital Audiofest. He said you actually were very cordial and professional in person, with none of the braggadocio and constantly derisive behavior toward audiophiles that you display on the Internet.
What did he think of the sound?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

Read the title of the journal. Next, read about the purpose of the journal. I wrote a paper about the application of sensory science principles to audio evaluation and I submitted it to a premier sensory science journal. It is amazing that you consider that bizarre. .
I see. So when it comes time to support your buywire and Tiptoes through the tulips audibility beliefs, it's Otala and IEEE literature links for me.
But when it's time to hide from IEEE review....excuse me, "propose" your "alternate" electro-acoustic audio system listening methods, it's the Premier Cooking Network. Interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

If someone says your speakers sound great, should I accuse them of imagination, placebo effect, personal bias and common sense?
You surely could. That certainly wouldn't make me look the fool, so why not? smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to buy a speaker from an established manufacturer with a solid record of quality and customer service?
For someone like you, with your requirements for fidelity, sure. Heck, even old Polks would do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

Actually, I did not buy the Tiptoes, they were given to me. If you, as a speaker manufacturer, are not familiar with the concept of "construction standards", I feel sorry for your customers.
As an EE, you familiar with the concept of Red Herrings and their applications to arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

Since you were not present when I did the evaluation of the amplifier's sound improvement with the Tiptoes, it is presumptive of you to categorize it as imagination, placebo effect and personal bias is it not?
Did you catch the part where that is your quote?? Imagination, placebo effect and personal bias. No?
Btw, me "being there" has no relevance to whether the apparition you "heard" was acoustic or psychogenic. I doubt you would understand this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

Do you think the "seasoned audiophiles" (I will refrain from making a joke about spices here) who gave your Monitor 1 "overwhelming positive reviews" were suffering from imagination, placebo effect, personal bias, and lack of common sense? What assurance can you give that the opinions of these "seasoned audiophiles" were accurate and that others will hear the same good sound they heard?
None. I assume it's because I used buywiring an Tippytoes under my amps.

cheers,

AJ

p.s. Btw, do you know you co-joined separated at birth twin posts here also?
Edited by AJinFLA - 7/2/12 at 4:36pm
post #158 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

As far as the topic. I have said all I wanted to say on biwiring. I take some consolation that you learned that moving an electrical junction point in a ciruit can change electrical properties.
It has been a great privilege to discuss audio topics with such distinguished gentlemen on a scientifically oriented forum such as this one. Thank you for the opportunity. I have now unsubscribed from this thread, but I hope you gentlemen will carry on the discussion about biwiring. Perhaps through your continued discussion, there will be some significant scientific "breakthroughs" on this controversial topic.
Good luck! smile.gif

Lol. I learned about the same as how LCR properties change with length and gauge of a piece of copper. I also learned you have zero faith in all your talk. You're not a very good instructor. Maybe you need to spend some time at your schools teaching and learning center doing some serious MSF survey's. I have a feeling you need it.

Maybe some of your students can go to a top tier engineering school and enter into a 12 step program after having you for a prof.

God forbid you get into it with Xianth here.
post #159 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

For someone like you, with your requirements for fidelity, sure. Heck, even old Polks would do.

Ok, that got a guffaw out of me.
post #160 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 

Given the audible and technically egregious levels of nonlinear distortion and noise that are inherent in the recording and playback of LPs, it is hard to comprehend how the detection of such exceptionally low levels of distortion could be accomplished using them.

Hi Arnold. See if any of the original authors are still around. Perhaps they can assist you with your comprehension.

Is it my comprehension that is lacking or is it yours?

After all, you staked your reputation on an ancient claim by Otala et al that very small amounts of nonlinear distortion were audible. However, this claim was based on a single blind listening evaluation which the AES subsequently repudiated as I am sure that you are aware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk 

The above is completely false in both its spirit and the details. The Bell system had absolutely nothing to do with the development of ABX. ABX was not developed for the purpose of "...evaluating simple bandlimited monophonic signals". All but one of the papers cited as support for the above paragaphs predate the JAES article that is generally considered to be the paper that introduced ABC by a decade or more. The paper later on cites that paper, so the author cannot claim ignorance.

What truth can come out of so many false claims?
If you go back and carefully re-read what I wrote and what you quoted, you will find that I never said, or even implied, that the ABX protocol was developed at Bell Labs.

No, but you did use papers that were written prior to the development of ABX to repudiate it by name.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight 
I specifically said that Bell Labs scientists used the ABX protocol to evaluate telephone systems.

Wrong. There are at least 2 different listening test methdologies that are called ABX. You must know this since you also cite the Clark paper which described his newer listening test methodology which happened to be also called ABX. If you actually understood the papers you've cited, you'd know that they are two different methodologies.
Edited by arnyk - 7/2/12 at 7:36pm
post #161 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqueKnight 
No, don't assume that. I firmly believe in measurable performance. Here are a few recent examples:
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?132437-Upgrade-High-Frequency-Inductors-For-The-SDA-SRS-1.2TL

The above appears to be based on on one or more sighted evaluations. Given the incredibly high incidence of false positives during sighted evaluations, it appears that you prefer to use testing methodologies that are likely to provide you with the results that you apparently desire.

The above also appears to be based on on one or more sighted evaluations. Same comment about the incredibly high incidence of false positives during sighted evaluations, It again appears that you prefer to use testing methodologies that are likely to provide you with the results that you apparently desire.

The above appears to be based on a large number of sighted evaluations. Same comments about the incredibly high incidence of false positives during sighted evaluations, It again appears that you prefer to use testing methodologies that that are likely to provide you with the results that you apparently desire.
post #162 of 261
I think Raife may have fled the scene of the wreck.
Real shame too, as with Amir, I tremendously enjoy the banter...and would be the one with the huge grin on his face were we to meet personally.
Ah well....wink.gif
post #163 of 261

The above report has a huge logical flaw - it attributes differences in sound quality to minor changes in power line spectral content that any competent power amplifier should be able to reject. The key measurement that is lacking is the transfer function of the power amplfiier from its power cord to its speaker terminals.
post #164 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

I think Raife may have fled the scene of the wreck.

I hope that Jinjuku won't mind me revealing that he predicted this in a PM to me, well before its occurrence. ;-)
post #165 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I hope that Jinjuku won't mind me revealing that he predicted this in a PM to me, well before its occurrence. ;-)

Don't mind at all. In a thread a ways back Xianth pointed out that Raife was making an audibility claim and using a scope to back it up.

Turns out that Raife was,I believe Xianth said, measuring dBv which can't be converted to dBa/dBu(?). I don't remember which it was but Xianth probably would. He didn't have anything kind to say about DK's measurements or method.

I'm sure he's ghosting the thread and would invite him to present his 'research' along with measurements, his theory and 'outcomes'. Let X or JNuetron or you in on the thread, AJ, Chu, Others that I am forgetting. Be interesting to say the least.

I think You already gave Raife a taste of what it would look like. I don't think he can afford to have that happen with the demi-god image he has constructed for himself over there. Unfortunately there is one guy that participates here and there that they have totally hoodwinked. He won't respond to my offer of stopping by with a Crown amp to A/B his Carver. Just head stuck in the sand. He stated 'I have my reasons'.
Edited by Jinjuku - 7/2/12 at 8:18pm
post #166 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The above report has a huge logical flaw - it attributes differences in sound quality to minor changes in power line spectral content that any competent power amplifier should be able to reject. The key measurement that is lacking is the transfer function of the power amplfiier from its power cord to its speaker terminals.

Go point that out at PF and see how quickly you get banned...tongue.gif
post #167 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

I think Raife may have fled the scene of the wreck.
I didn't know amirm has a twin brother. eek.gifrolleyes.gif
post #168 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahead View Post

The people on this tread (sic) must be the same as the ones who occupy wall street. Not one of them really owns a high end stereo.Just all talk.We call them Basement boys.

What do we say about people who claim to be from the US but still habitually make mistakes along the lines of confusing "tread" with "thread"? ;-)

As far as the people who occupied Wall street go, there is every indication that they are intelligent, well-educated, and peaceful. Would you feel more positively about them if they posted global insults on audio forums? ;-)

What does "really own" mean? Do you want to get into an argument based on dueling net worths?

Please provide a formal definition of "High End Stereo". Is it performance-related?

It is true that many people have located their listening rooms in their basements to take advantage of available space and good environmental isolation which are very important technical considerations. Is it written in stone that any audio system that is located below grade is necessarily substandard and most definitely not high end?
post #169 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahead View Post

We call them Basement boys.

It's not what we call you:eek:wink.gif

What setup do you run? I'll bet by the way you talk you have a TT at the heart of it.
post #170 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahead View Post

The people on this tread must be the same as the ones who occupy wall street. Not one of them really owns a high end stereo.Just all talk.We call them Basement boys.

Listening to a Cary SLI80 CD303T combo driving my 1812s right now. Would that be Low or Mid-Fi to the hIQ anonymous daydreamers who type like 5 year olds? smile.gif

562
post #171 of 261
Tubes are only good for Guitar amps.They provide no bass at all.Ever seen a Bass player'they all use solid state amps with maybe a tube in the preamp. I would never own a Tube amp for a high end setup unless using a biamp setup with the tubes driving the highs and mids ONLY.
post #172 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Listening to a Cary SLI80 CD303T combo driving my 1812s right now. Would that be Low or Mid-Fi to the hIQ anonymous daydreamers who type like 5 year olds? smile.gif

Pffft, budda wouldn't use a tube from a Cary to use even as a porch light. Still waiting to see what budda has for a setup.
post #173 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahead View Post

Tubes are only good for Guitar amps.They provide no bass at all.Ever seen a Bass player'they all use solid state amps with maybe a tube in the preamp. I would never own a Tube amp for a high end setup unless using a biamp setup with the tubes driving the highs and mids ONLY.

The 1812s high efficiency 18" dipole subs are fully active (SS).
Do you imagine you are getting anything near this "high end" level of sound in your living room?
post #174 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Go point that out at PF and see how quickly you get banned...tongue.gif

PF?

The letters don't ring a bell.
post #175 of 261
Polk Forum. A place that makes the Audio Asylum look like an AES conference.
post #176 of 261
Ironically, if them hokey polkeys were to venture into the loony bin, they would be dismissively scoffed at as having Lo-Fi speakers incapable of "revealingness", by the stone head figure types.
Go figure.
post #177 of 261
post #178 of 261
Quote:
Arny decided to jump into the soup at PF.
He's like a bull in front of a red cape. smile.gif
post #179 of 261
Should get AJ posting over there and then have a betting pool to see which one gets banned first for being correct.
post #180 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahead View Post

The people on this tread must be the same as the ones who occupy wall street. Not one of them really owns a high end stereo.Just all talk.We call them Basement boys.

Listening to a Cary SLI80 CD303T combo driving my 1812s right now. Would that be Low or Mid-Fi to the hIQ anonymous daydreamers who type like 5 year olds? smile.gif

562

that is downright sexy.... < drool >

(says he from his 2nd floor basement... tongue.gif )
Edited by ccotenj - 7/3/12 at 6:33pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › speaker cables and jumpers vs bi-wiring