sorry for being little off topic
Mark:
I thought the BAT VK-60 have some sort of auto-bias which makes matching unnecessary?
Why the 6C33 have to be matched though?
I ask because a friend of mine bought a pair of second-hand BAT VK-60 very recently (I haven`t yet had time to listen them). Unfortunately currently I have nothing to compare with them but sooner or later (rather later) the BAT`s have to face a Aleph-X.
This is an excellent thread as it`s always very interesting to hear what people (not magazines which are heavily biased IMO) say about the sound of commercial hifi equipment against DIY. There are hardly comparisons like this and I would like to read much more about.
Panos:
If You are going to take measurements I would suggest not measuring the amps but the speakers impedance/phase/sensivity) used for the comparison. This might be more meaningful about the comparison at all than the amp measurements because knowing more about the speaker likely helps to make fair conclusions easier (as we all know measurements of an amp does not tell us much about the sound).
Re: In defence of dual-concentrics
I agree. I've had Golds and HPDs, and in decent encloures, not what they came from the factory in, they can be extraordinary. The Alnico / pepperpots are by far the best. There are few speakers even today that are as musically coherent, and few that can touch a good Q57 within it's range.
Putting and HPD385 in a 70l enclosure is a waste: they need 300l, and the too small enclosure will affect the sound up into the upper mids.
Peter,analog_sa said:
I agree. I've had Golds and HPDs, and in decent encloures, not what they came from the factory in, they can be extraordinary. The Alnico / pepperpots are by far the best. There are few speakers even today that are as musically coherent, and few that can touch a good Q57 within it's range.
Putting and HPD385 in a 70l enclosure is a waste: they need 300l, and the too small enclosure will affect the sound up into the upper mids.
I'd like to clarify that I have not heard the Lamm amplifiers. They may be great or they may be dreck. I have no opinion until I hear them on a system I am familiar with.
On the subject of reviewers:
What is the function of a reviewer?
To speak the truth, obviously. Someone who lies is of no use.
Ah, but there are other things afoot. Suppose that a reviewer simply goes at things differently from the way you do. In my case, my system sees mainly jazz, classical, and a slowly decreasing proportion of rock. Suppose I am faced with a reviewer who prefers hip-hop. Hmmm. He (she?...unlikely) will probably be interested in the absolute amount of volume that a system can produce. I still sometimes play loud (cranked one of those Chinese percussion things up the other day--sometimes it's just fun to dust off your subwoofer cones), but it's not my main priority these days. However, imaging (both width & depth) is very, very important to me. Imaging to a hip-hop listener is a foreign concept. Ain't no such thing. Might as well speak Russian to a Canadian.
Still, a reviewer who listens to something else may still be of use to me. How? By doing two things. One, they must be consistent. It's amazing to me how inconsistent most reviewers are. Two, they must have an identifiable point of view. I have to <i>know</i> what they listen to so as to translate between their point of view and mine.
As an example: Once upon a time, there was a reviewer at <i>The Absolute Sound</i> named Patrick Donleycot (sp?). I did not entirely agree with him, as he spent a lot of time focussed on the bottom end. Harry Pearson had another viewpoint. Again, I did not agree with Pearson all the time. But if the two of them both weighed in on the same product, I knew <i>exactly</i> what it sounded like simply because I knew where they were coming from and I could triangulate using their differing reports.
TAS's reviews of the original Martin Logan CLS were a perfect example of this. Pearson said something to the effect that it was 'a little forward in the upper midrange' which was a red flag for me. I knew from experience that his 'little forward' was an intolerable glare to me. Sure enough, when I finally heard the CLSs, they were precisely what I expected--unbearable.
You don't have to agree with a reviewer for their writings to be relevant.
I must say that I laugh every time someone here wants 'reviews' of the sound of something. On the one hand, I've seen far too many people get religion over quite humble circuits (chip amps, for instance). I doubt seriously that they and I are reading from the same page. On the other hand, even if they have high standards, there's no telling how to interpret their 'reviews'; they have no track record. They might think the bass is soft, but no one here would know what to make of that statement. It takes time to settle in with a reviewer and learn their quirks.
Grey
On the subject of reviewers:
What is the function of a reviewer?
To speak the truth, obviously. Someone who lies is of no use.
Ah, but there are other things afoot. Suppose that a reviewer simply goes at things differently from the way you do. In my case, my system sees mainly jazz, classical, and a slowly decreasing proportion of rock. Suppose I am faced with a reviewer who prefers hip-hop. Hmmm. He (she?...unlikely) will probably be interested in the absolute amount of volume that a system can produce. I still sometimes play loud (cranked one of those Chinese percussion things up the other day--sometimes it's just fun to dust off your subwoofer cones), but it's not my main priority these days. However, imaging (both width & depth) is very, very important to me. Imaging to a hip-hop listener is a foreign concept. Ain't no such thing. Might as well speak Russian to a Canadian.
Still, a reviewer who listens to something else may still be of use to me. How? By doing two things. One, they must be consistent. It's amazing to me how inconsistent most reviewers are. Two, they must have an identifiable point of view. I have to <i>know</i> what they listen to so as to translate between their point of view and mine.
As an example: Once upon a time, there was a reviewer at <i>The Absolute Sound</i> named Patrick Donleycot (sp?). I did not entirely agree with him, as he spent a lot of time focussed on the bottom end. Harry Pearson had another viewpoint. Again, I did not agree with Pearson all the time. But if the two of them both weighed in on the same product, I knew <i>exactly</i> what it sounded like simply because I knew where they were coming from and I could triangulate using their differing reports.
TAS's reviews of the original Martin Logan CLS were a perfect example of this. Pearson said something to the effect that it was 'a little forward in the upper midrange' which was a red flag for me. I knew from experience that his 'little forward' was an intolerable glare to me. Sure enough, when I finally heard the CLSs, they were precisely what I expected--unbearable.
You don't have to agree with a reviewer for their writings to be relevant.
I must say that I laugh every time someone here wants 'reviews' of the sound of something. On the one hand, I've seen far too many people get religion over quite humble circuits (chip amps, for instance). I doubt seriously that they and I are reading from the same page. On the other hand, even if they have high standards, there's no telling how to interpret their 'reviews'; they have no track record. They might think the bass is soft, but no one here would know what to make of that statement. It takes time to settle in with a reviewer and learn their quirks.
Grey
Oops...forgot to note that all the reviews of the Martin Logan CLS in <i>The Absolute Sound</i> were very, very positive. If you had taken the reviews at face value, you'd have ended up buying the things without bothering to listen to them.
For that matter, all the reviews I saw in other magazines were positive, too. Nearly unanimous praise.
But that one comment from Peason told me everything I needed to know, simply because I understood how he heard things, even though I disagreed with his conclusions. Considering that I was in the market for speakers at the time, that review saved me a lot of time (trying to find a shop where I could hear the CLSs), and potentially money (had I bought them without listening first).
Grey
For that matter, all the reviews I saw in other magazines were positive, too. Nearly unanimous praise.
But that one comment from Peason told me everything I needed to know, simply because I understood how he heard things, even though I disagreed with his conclusions. Considering that I was in the market for speakers at the time, that review saved me a lot of time (trying to find a shop where I could hear the CLSs), and potentially money (had I bought them without listening first).
Grey
Good to see a well spirited debate here.
I have not heard the Lamm amps either, but agree with Greys view on power (apples for apples) and his point about what you play through your system and how.
"This is the key and we just can't go by what a reviewer says " as gospal".
I also tend to think that some amp makers are notably different about how they voice their amps " that different sound is their marking point" and they have to sound different from the opposition or they would not be in business would they.
This is where an un suspecting audoiphile's search of utopia gets taken for a ride.
Are we are better to base our thoughts on factual information about the design, ie real power output, class A push pull, single ended, valves, fet, simple vs complex design etc will give an indication of the amps quality. Any real fully baised class A amp is going to be good, its just a case of how its executed, all the others will be lesser amps.
An example, I recently heard an AR D100 (?) 100 +100 its a highly biased AB valve monster, it sounded big, but reminded me of a Marshall guitar amp in the way it coloured the sound, but hey on certain musical tastes it could add that spice and make it enjoyable.
Now wheel in the tiny Cary SL70, Full Class A 35+35 push pull, it was more revelling and more hi fi in accuracy on say Jazz but obviously a lesser power house on Rock, but within those boundaries and excellent amp with only a minimal hint of a valve sound and with speaker like mine wacko.
And now that old classic (which I made) the JLH 15 watt SE amp, amazing clarity and resolving power, a bit underdamped bass but tells the truth like no other on all material, but it won't make the headlines in Stereophile though with limited power reserves.
Now the Aleph 5, a close tie with the Cary, but on closer comparsion it less coloured and has a natural midrange clarity, resolving power and the punch which make it the winner.
Finally, the Aleph 2, has scale and contrast which is boundless, more clarity in the bass and appears more refined on terms of balance, resolving power and accuracy. So many albums are a re discovery. The power, higher bias and obviously come in play here for a higher level of capability.
The execution at realistic levels on a well engineered recording is hair raising experience, no wonder it is the Master's favourite Aleph .
Cheers
macka
I have not heard the Lamm amps either, but agree with Greys view on power (apples for apples) and his point about what you play through your system and how.
"This is the key and we just can't go by what a reviewer says " as gospal".
I also tend to think that some amp makers are notably different about how they voice their amps " that different sound is their marking point" and they have to sound different from the opposition or they would not be in business would they.
This is where an un suspecting audoiphile's search of utopia gets taken for a ride.
Are we are better to base our thoughts on factual information about the design, ie real power output, class A push pull, single ended, valves, fet, simple vs complex design etc will give an indication of the amps quality. Any real fully baised class A amp is going to be good, its just a case of how its executed, all the others will be lesser amps.
An example, I recently heard an AR D100 (?) 100 +100 its a highly biased AB valve monster, it sounded big, but reminded me of a Marshall guitar amp in the way it coloured the sound, but hey on certain musical tastes it could add that spice and make it enjoyable.
Now wheel in the tiny Cary SL70, Full Class A 35+35 push pull, it was more revelling and more hi fi in accuracy on say Jazz but obviously a lesser power house on Rock, but within those boundaries and excellent amp with only a minimal hint of a valve sound and with speaker like mine wacko.
And now that old classic (which I made) the JLH 15 watt SE amp, amazing clarity and resolving power, a bit underdamped bass but tells the truth like no other on all material, but it won't make the headlines in Stereophile though with limited power reserves.
Now the Aleph 5, a close tie with the Cary, but on closer comparsion it less coloured and has a natural midrange clarity, resolving power and the punch which make it the winner.
Finally, the Aleph 2, has scale and contrast which is boundless, more clarity in the bass and appears more refined on terms of balance, resolving power and accuracy. So many albums are a re discovery. The power, higher bias and obviously come in play here for a higher level of capability.
The execution at realistic levels on a well engineered recording is hair raising experience, no wonder it is the Master's favourite Aleph .
Cheers
macka
cocolino,
I never had experience with dual BAT VK-60's either........could never find a second used one to buy when I had mine. It was failry new at the time and I was VERY lucky to have found the one that I did. It really is an amazing tube amp and if I had to go back to tubes it would be to the BAT.
Mark
I never had experience with dual BAT VK-60's either........could never find a second used one to buy when I had mine. It was failry new at the time and I was VERY lucky to have found the one that I did. It really is an amazing tube amp and if I had to go back to tubes it would be to the BAT.
Mark
'I recently heard an AR D100 (?) 100 +100 its a highly biased AB valve '
Really? This Hi End audio dealer I met once told me in all seriousness that all tube amps are class A!
He later got really pissy when I told him his B&W setup sounded nothing different than the JBL listening room at best buy.
The world of audio reviewer is a strange one anyway. I wonder if these people have a real job they have to show up to. It's easy to see how perception could really get distorted in certain environments.
Really? This Hi End audio dealer I met once told me in all seriousness that all tube amps are class A!
He later got really pissy when I told him his B&W setup sounded nothing different than the JBL listening room at best buy.
The world of audio reviewer is a strange one anyway. I wonder if these people have a real job they have to show up to. It's easy to see how perception could really get distorted in certain environments.
B&W have one of the most distinctive 'house sounds' in high end audio today. Every model I've ever heard has a prominent upper midrange...well...glare that I can not abide. Yet they review well and sell like hotcakes as near as I can tell.
Like JBL?
Yes, I can see how you could make that comparison. It's not the first one that springs to mind, but it's not altogether inaccurate, either. I've heard some JBL models over the years that I could live with, which is more than I could say for any B&W I've heard yet. (I suspect untamed resonances in the upper ranges of those woven cone drivers.) No, I haven't heard all the B&Ws...and for that matter it's been a while since I've listened to JBLs. <i>Sigh</i> Perhaps I'll get around to listening to current models next spring. Maybe.
Speakers frustrate me. There are so few that I regard as good...and I can't afford the bloody things. The irony is that my speakers resemble nothing so much as the Infinity IRS/Genesis One (both Arnie Nudell products; variations on the same theme), yet I regard those speakers as being good, but not the best I've heard. Let's see...shooting from the hip, I'd have to give the nod for best all-round speaker to the big Sound Labs electrostat (M-1?). The old Stax F-81 had a glorious midrange but was probably the single most inefficient speaker I've ever dealt with. 200W just to make it whisper.
So, Grey, why aren't you pursuing ESLs if you like them so much?
Well, directionality is a problem; don't like the 'head in a vise' aspect of ESLs (yes, I know Sound Labs has a segmented panel, and that Martin Logan is curved). They're also only good down to, say, 200 Hz or so, perhaps 75Hz if you have one the size of a barn door. Then you're stuck trying to mate them to a woofer and/or subwoofer. Ugh. Not to mention most ESLs are even more inefficient than what I'm running here (I'm in the upper 80s range). Most ESLs are, what, mid-eighties? I'm loathe to give up that 3-4dB of efficiency.
(I hear Nelson chuckling--he regards anything less than 98db/W as hopeless. I made the joking comment to Cyclotron Guy that I'll never work for Nelson--he wouldn't tolerate my inefficient speakers...)
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Grey
Like JBL?
Yes, I can see how you could make that comparison. It's not the first one that springs to mind, but it's not altogether inaccurate, either. I've heard some JBL models over the years that I could live with, which is more than I could say for any B&W I've heard yet. (I suspect untamed resonances in the upper ranges of those woven cone drivers.) No, I haven't heard all the B&Ws...and for that matter it's been a while since I've listened to JBLs. <i>Sigh</i> Perhaps I'll get around to listening to current models next spring. Maybe.
Speakers frustrate me. There are so few that I regard as good...and I can't afford the bloody things. The irony is that my speakers resemble nothing so much as the Infinity IRS/Genesis One (both Arnie Nudell products; variations on the same theme), yet I regard those speakers as being good, but not the best I've heard. Let's see...shooting from the hip, I'd have to give the nod for best all-round speaker to the big Sound Labs electrostat (M-1?). The old Stax F-81 had a glorious midrange but was probably the single most inefficient speaker I've ever dealt with. 200W just to make it whisper.
So, Grey, why aren't you pursuing ESLs if you like them so much?
Well, directionality is a problem; don't like the 'head in a vise' aspect of ESLs (yes, I know Sound Labs has a segmented panel, and that Martin Logan is curved). They're also only good down to, say, 200 Hz or so, perhaps 75Hz if you have one the size of a barn door. Then you're stuck trying to mate them to a woofer and/or subwoofer. Ugh. Not to mention most ESLs are even more inefficient than what I'm running here (I'm in the upper 80s range). Most ESLs are, what, mid-eighties? I'm loathe to give up that 3-4dB of efficiency.
(I hear Nelson chuckling--he regards anything less than 98db/W as hopeless. I made the joking comment to Cyclotron Guy that I'll never work for Nelson--he wouldn't tolerate my inefficient speakers...)
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Grey
...And don't get me started on sales critters who can't comprehend the difference between class A and class AB. I once got into an argument with a minion in a high end shop who was all hot to tell me that amplifier (mumble) was class A up to thus and such wattage, after which it was class B.
"Oh, so it's class AB," quoth I.
He shook his head. "No, it's heavily biased class A."
The conversation went downhill from there. Fast.
Grey
"Oh, so it's class AB," quoth I.
He shook his head. "No, it's heavily biased class A."
The conversation went downhill from there. Fast.
Grey
We had some real fun in this threadGRollins said:
about "Marketing terms"
while we tried to sort out what "ClassA+" amplifier stands for.
The sad thing is that many of our fellows
who are not Amplifier Experts
gets fooled and do not get what they should have
for money spent.
Thread: "Monogram 3100 class A+ amp"
/halojoy has once said:
- A good laugh makes life worth living!
LOL, been there many times.GRollins said:
My fave experience with a saleshack was at a hi fi show around the time seedee came out. Said saleshack was stretching the truth about the benefits of the medium, wel lets say a LOT. I stood and listened to this guy, who was obviously an engineer/tech, for quite come time and them started asking some pointed (educated) questions and then he began a BS spiel. At that time, I'd had some expreience with pro digital products (in a studio I worked in part time whilst at Uni), so I politely corrected him or offered a differing opinion. His face got redder and redder as he twisted under my (very polite) onslaught and at the end we had quite a crowd of people, maybe 40, standing around listening, as consumer digital was new and there was a lot of interest in it.
At one point his saleshack BS had painted him totally into a corner, so he tried to wow the crowd with a demo of CD's physical resilience to handling by dropping it to the carpet and treading on it/twisting it in, then playing it. He took it out of the player and I asked to see it, and he gave it to me, thinking he had the upper hand again. I saw lots of very fine scuffs, so I held it and put two thumbprints on the surface. When he put it back in the player, it mistracked really badly. He <i>demanded</i> (should have seen the vein in his forehead throbbing!) I leave the room, probably because everyone laughed uproariously, especially one guy just behind me.
In the hall the guy who'd been behind me stopped me and shook my hand, in between chuckles, and walked off laughing to himself. We'd already spoken a few times before that day in different rooms and had some interesting chats. It was late by then so I went home.
Several weeks later I bought a UK mag and saw a picture of the guy who'd been laughing so much, and found it was the late Julian Vereker.
Hmm,
Not real sure what about the last few posts,...................?
...............................................................................................................By the way, my review was with the most recent Maggies 3.6 I think, nothing to do with JBL, and the owner made the comments not me....so.
Please do not take this the wrong way Guys but.........................,
I can see both side of the humour , but .....................the owner of the maggies now uses my JBL studio monitors as the reference.
So we are not talking about retail trash here on lucky 23 rd street NY or some Orange County surround system with cheap foam surround on Ebay, but The comparisons on the JBLs at at later date were equally obvious as this is a customised (the 2123 10"mid cone costs a cool $650) Pro broadcast monitor where piston cone devices with deliberately limited bandwidth rival a conventional speaker system.
Why elso would I bother........I mean HELLO there...........is any body out there.(Quote Pink Foyd)
macka
Not real sure what about the last few posts,...................?
...............................................................................................................By the way, my review was with the most recent Maggies 3.6 I think, nothing to do with JBL, and the owner made the comments not me....so.
Please do not take this the wrong way Guys but.........................,
I can see both side of the humour , but .....................the owner of the maggies now uses my JBL studio monitors as the reference.
So we are not talking about retail trash here on lucky 23 rd street NY or some Orange County surround system with cheap foam surround on Ebay, but The comparisons on the JBLs at at later date were equally obvious as this is a customised (the 2123 10"mid cone costs a cool $650) Pro broadcast monitor where piston cone devices with deliberately limited bandwidth rival a conventional speaker system.
Why elso would I bother........I mean HELLO there...........is any body out there.(Quote Pink Foyd)
macka
You gave me the laugh of the day.
Only one thing, who is Julian Vereker?
What is obviuosly know by someones,
is totally unknown to others.
This is the information I need to be able to sleep tonight.
----------------------------------------------------
A side remark:
With the numbers of newbies, we get as members all the time,
it is always better to explain things
as if noone knows anything for certain.
I try to show this consideration as often as I can.
My posts are probably read by 10 times as many peoples
as the ones taking part in the thread
discussing the subjects.
The more these readers understand of what is going on,
the more ACTIVE members www.diyAudio.com will get.
I, myself, do not want to be left out -
so I do try not to leave other out.
My big welcome to any new friends - at this friendly forum.
/halo
joyincarnated
Only one thing, who is Julian Vereker?
What is obviuosly know by someones,
is totally unknown to others.
This is the information I need to be able to sleep tonight.
----------------------------------------------------
A side remark:
With the numbers of newbies, we get as members all the time,
it is always better to explain things
as if noone knows anything for certain.
I try to show this consideration as often as I can.
My posts are probably read by 10 times as many peoples
as the ones taking part in the thread
discussing the subjects.
The more these readers understand of what is going on,
the more ACTIVE members www.diyAudio.com will get.
I, myself, do not want to be left out -
so I do try not to leave other out.
My big welcome to any new friends - at this friendly forum.
/halo
joyincarnatedYes, I think you have got a point there:zeno said:Has anyone ever compared a DIY Pass with a real one from the hands of the One and Only?
Maybe one gets the same sonic difference, due to parts, mechanics etc.
Marc
Most DIY Pass amps would probably
be superior in sound compared to the Pass amps on the market.
I should really want to have a listen to
the "fine-tuned, tweaked to the last fraction of a %"
amplifiers by builders like:
Peter Daniel, mrfeedback, Fred Dickerman ...
well, you know, the list is impressive ...
they really know what they are talking about
and who can count the hours of work
these men have put into bringing performance unto "the ultimate limit"
Our friend Nelson will have to excuse,
I rather listen to a diyAudio version
of his interesting amplifiers.
Some day I even might build something like them.
/halojoy likes music
- so an amplifier is a necessery evil
Re: You gave me the laugh of the day.
Hopefully I'm not too late.
Julian Vereker was the founder of Naim Audio.
He passed away at age 54 a couple of years ago.
Here's an obituary that goes into some of his
contributions: http://www.hifiheaven.com/news/vereker.html
Tchau,
Erik
halojoy said:Only one thing, who is Julian Vereker?
is totally unknown to others.
This is the information I need to be able to sleep tonight.
Hopefully I'm not too late.
Julian Vereker was the founder of Naim Audio.
He passed away at age 54 a couple of years ago.
Here's an obituary that goes into some of his
contributions: http://www.hifiheaven.com/news/vereker.html
Tchau,
Erik
Re: Re: You gave me the laugh of the day.
I was fortunate enough to have a Linn/Naim system back in the Flat Earther days, and I enjoyed it a heap [LP12/Ittok/Asak/42/2 x 160/Saras (although I wanted Isobariks)]. I forget what great leap of logic made me sell it now, as it was one of the most <i>fun</i> systems I've ever heard.
The Naim advertising in the 80's was brilliant and made me laugh, so I was especially pleased to return the favour on that day. He was a funny, charming and intelligent man and I was glad to have met him.
Thanks for that Erik, you beat me to it.eLarson said:
I was fortunate enough to have a Linn/Naim system back in the Flat Earther days, and I enjoyed it a heap [LP12/Ittok/Asak/42/2 x 160/Saras (although I wanted Isobariks)]. I forget what great leap of logic made me sell it now, as it was one of the most <i>fun</i> systems I've ever heard.
The Naim advertising in the 80's was brilliant and made me laugh, so I was especially pleased to return the favour on that day. He was a funny, charming and intelligent man and I was glad to have met him.
Re: You gave me the laugh of the day.
It would have taken you less effort to do a google search yourself than write this, so your sleep would have been better with a small amount of effort on your part.
----------------------------------------------------
However, I can't help but notice how much more socialising (I don't know what else to call it) there is in your posts than information.
Bigger is not always better.
Please feel free to desist in giving me lessons in etiquette in future. If I want one I'll ask.
Halo,halojoy said:Only one thing, who is Julian Vereker?
What is obviuosly know by someones,
is totally unknown to others.
This is the information I need to be able to sleep tonight.
It would have taken you less effort to do a google search yourself than write this, so your sleep would have been better with a small amount of effort on your part.
----------------------------------------------------
Specious remark considering the amount of effort I put into explaining things to people here. There is often a ton of work goes into some of the tech posts. Generally I am very polite and helpful, and if people wish for clarification of something I've posted, they should feel free to ask, and I'm not going to post a long diatribe on basics just because there might be one person reading who doesn't understand.
However, I can't help but notice how much more socialising (I don't know what else to call it) there is in your posts than information.
No, the same people have to read each of your posts 10 times to glom what you're on about.
I'm not a booster for the site. We get as many people as we get, and I'm not really concerned how many that is.
Bigger is not always better.
Please feel free to desist in giving me lessons in etiquette in future. If I want one I'll ask.
"...people have to read each of your posts 10 times to glom what you're on about..."
Carl, I've tried reading some of your posts 10 times too, and I still do not understand what the hell you're on about.
"However, I can't help but notice how much more socialising (I don't know what else to call it) there is in your posts than information."
Yeah Brett, I have noticed that too - pisses me off too.
I agreee hi-fi shop salesmen are like lambs to slaughter when trying to discuss technical issues, and whilst generally enthusiastic about what they are selling, are not all that experienced in sounds or technologies.
Eric.
Carl, I've tried reading some of your posts 10 times too, and I still do not understand what the hell you're on about.
"However, I can't help but notice how much more socialising (I don't know what else to call it) there is in your posts than information."
Yeah Brett, I have noticed that too - pisses me off too.
I agreee hi-fi shop salesmen are like lambs to slaughter when trying to discuss technical issues, and whilst generally enthusiastic about what they are selling, are not all that experienced in sounds or technologies.
Eric.
Re: "...people have to read each of your posts 10 times to glom what you're on about..."
What made that incident so special was that the guy obviously <i>was</i> an engineer. Salesmen are just too easy, and on the rare occaision I'm in a store now, I don't even bother correcting them anymore.
Toodlepip
Hola Eric,mrfeedback said:
What made that incident so special was that the guy obviously <i>was</i> an engineer. Salesmen are just too easy, and on the rare occaision I'm in a store now, I don't even bother correcting them anymore.
Toodlepip
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.