my "stuff"

[Ajani]

I know what your saying. But, when someone who never owned or LISTENED to tube gear (only read specs which do NOT tell you how it sounds) to say they sound worse than a wave or HTIB, it's not just a grain of salt, it's a pile of ignorance.

I know he doesn't care, but the little respect he gained by revealing his gear went right out the window with his comments.

I'm done debating with a one sided, no experience spec reader who has no clue how good his own speakers could sound. My Counterpoint would really make them sing! The Emotiva is just a reasonably priced budget amp just like the old Audio Source amps were but nothing to brag about or compare the sound to real performers, not even a Stratos, Hafler, or Rotel SS amp.

I get your basic point and agree, but I need to make one clarification:

A large number of Emotiva owners also have/had Rotel amps and find the Emotiva to be equal or slightly better than Rotel/other midfi gear... So the Emotiva/B&W combo Pix has probably sounds quite good (for the price)...

However, I agree that it would be great for him to actually try some tubes/more expensive SS instead of just tossing around theory grenades...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

However, I agree that it would be great for him to actually try some tubes/more expensive SS instead of just tossing around theory grenades...

It is not going to happen. I have been asking him to refrain from commenting on 3D for months now because he has ZERO experience with current 3D. It is not in his DNA to try something first, then comment. He operates solely off of his outdated education, and gut feeling.

[GMichael]

Shoot from the hip Pixy.
It's ok, as long as we all know that's what's going on.

[pixelthis]

Well, some of what he says is true. Tube gear is more fragile than SS, it wears out quicker, and is also subject to a wider range of quality issues compared to SS. And of course it usually costs more per watt, although not always. I think where the problem lies is that Pix likes to throw grenades when he posts. I would take some of what he posts with a grain of salt, as sometimes he's just trying to get a rise out of you.

THATS always a problem, state facts and you're a troll all of a sudden.
Sorry, but I HAVE NEVER suffered a fool his delusions. People who love antique tube gear,
magical power cords with sound improving qualities that defy physics, record players,
audio cables that cost a months pay for a one meter pair, well, they can use and even advocate such money wasting silliness all day if they want, I HOPE THEY ENJOY THE
placebo effect they are laboring under, and which marketing scumbags love.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME I am entitled to my opinion also. AND I have facts and reason,
let someone thinking about wasting money on such faerie dust have both arguments to consider is all I AM SAYING.

[pixelthis]

The underlying problem is deeper than tubes vs SS or his penchant for grenades and weird images. If he were to take the online test I referenced, he would be confronted with the reality of the (in)audibility of *pathetic* levels of simple harmonic distortion. Such would be unacceptable. His lack of intellectual honesty prevents him from accepting a truth which conflicts with his dogma.

rw

so scientific FACT is now considered "dogma"?
WHAT GALL!!! And "intellectual" honesty"? BECAUSE I won't take part in some lame
biased "test" whose only purpose is to support the delusional attitudes of those who devised it, some of who probably work for the marketing depts of some tube makers?
WHY SHOULD I waste my time with this nonsense? If tubes are so superiour then why
are they not used in hardly any gear except "high end" audio designed to stoke the egos
of the owners, who get to brag about how "special" their gear is, and feed their neurosis.
IF TUBES are so superior in comparison to solid state, then why does solid state outnumber tube gear by a few million to one?
I will never take your "test" BTW, just like I WONT TAKE a "test" where a horse is "proved" Superior to a car because the car is a chevy Impala with a lawnmower
engine. Solid state outperforms tubes in every categeory, especial the all important
one, audio quality. I HAVE NEVER HEARD A SIGNLE TUBE SET that sounds better
than a cheap Pioneer amp, which was proved a few years ago, btw, in a double blind test,
where a 400 buck Pioneer plastic receiver beat amps costing up to 150,000$.

[dean_martin]

You don't like your "technics antique direct drive TT"?

[pixelthis]

I get your basic point and agree, but I need to make one clarification:

A large number of Emotiva owners also have/had Rotel amps and find the Emotiva to be equal or slightly better than Rotel/other midfi gear... So the Emotiva/B&W combo Pix has probably sounds quite good (for the price)...

However, I agree that it would be great for him to actually try some tubes/more expensive SS instead of just tossing around theory grenades...

Some more "expensive" solid state gear might be nice, but won't necessarily improve things
just because it cost more.
I bought the EMOTIVA because I was leery of them, and they had a sale, and 250 bucks
is kind of hard to pass up for an amp with such specs. Turns out they made believers
outta me. I have always been one of those who think amps, outside of a few quality
areas, are pretty much generic. The Emotiva pushes the electrons down the pipe
with consistent quality and effort. THEY HAVE converted me from critic to loyal customer,
in other words.
And I WILL NEVER own tube gear. OR A HORSE AND CARRIAGE.
Or a gramophone, or a b&w 13" tv. OR SPATS. Or a top hat. Tubes distort sound,
its their nature, its a fundamental feature of their construction, and if you could get rid
of the distortion, they would sound like solid state. So why?

[pixelthis]

You don't like your "technics antique direct drive TT"?

I like the small library of records I have, and my TECHNICS does the job of playing them quite well. Vinly fans(like a certain MICHEAL FREMMER) are even more delusional than tube freaks, and are quite often one and the same .
IN Absolute Sound a few years back they interviewed a famous audio engineer, a guy
who has done several famous titles, and the interviewer asked him flat out which was best,
CD or vinly, and he said that CD was better , and stated a long list of reasons why.
Which went in and out of the heads of just about all vinyl fans, or course .

[pixelthis]

It is not going to happen. I have been asking him to refrain from commenting on 3D for months now because he has ZERO experience with current 3D. It is not in his DNA to try something first, then comment. He operates solely off of his outdated education, and gut feeling.

Gut feeling has nothing to do with it, except hating your guts, maybe

3D tech is nothing new under the sun, from the latest mag with Anna Kornikova in
3D to Avatar. All 3D SYSTEMS operate under the same basic principles.
Sorry if that goes against the statements of whatever propaganda (opps, marketing)
dept you work under, but maybe someday reality of a sort will force its way into that
cranium of yours.
BUT PROBABLY NOT.

[pixelthis]

Shoot from the hip Pixy.
It's ok, as long as we all know that's what's going on.

With all of the training I received as a Police, the hip is the last place I WILL SHOOT FROM, and I always hit my target.

[pixelthis]

I get your basic point and agree, but I need to make one clarification:

A large number of Emotiva owners also have/had Rotel amps and find the Emotiva to be equal or slightly better than Rotel/other midfi gear... So the Emotiva/B&W combo Pix has probably sounds quite good (for the price)...

However, I agree that it would be great for him to actually try some tubes/more expensive SS instead of just tossing around theory grenades...

What "theory"? THEORY is a non-proven statement, the proof that tubes are worse than solid state would fill an office building.
THATS WHY tube advocates hate double blind tests. Because their precious "tube" gear
never passes, the most intense tube lover, under a double blind test, has usually picked the solid state unit as best sounding, much to their embarrassment .
They deny this of course. THEIR RELIGION, like most, defy logic.

[dean_martin]

I like the small library of records I have, and my TECHNICS does the job of playing them quite well. Vinly fans(like a certain MICHEAL FREMMER) are even more delusional than tube freaks, and are quite often one and the same .
IN Absolute Sound a few years back they interviewed a famous audio engineer, a guy
who has done several famous titles, and the interviewer asked him flat out which was best,
CD or vinly, and he said that CD was better , and stated a long list of reasons why.
Which went in and out of the heads of just about all vinyl fans, or course .

I won't try to defend Fremmer. He gets paid to defend himself. I just wish I had access to some of the gear he reviews.

For a long time cds and cd players sounded like crap. It took a lot of money to put together a digital front end that competed with a quality table/arm/cart setup. And, there's no help for some of my earliest cds other than to replace them with remasters if available. Heck, some of my newer pop cds are spitty on top with limited bass extension - probably recorded for car cdps. OTOH, I have some cds that engulf me with sound. There's a little more to it than one format versus another. Potential and execution are different animals. Maybe vinyl fans noted consistency in their vinyl which was obviously recorded for home playback as compared to early, poorly engineered cds and even modern pop cds engineered for compressed radio playback and in-dash automobile cd players? Plus, there's something to be said for the vinyl ritual, the size of the cover art work and other things that soothe the obsessive-compulsive beast inside.

I've done some reading myself. I recall an interview with an audio engineer who said that the red book standard was wrong from the start. If it wasn't wrong, then there would be no need for higher resolution sacd and dvd-a. One could simply use the red book standard bit rate for multi-channel formats. So there you go. The engineer I read had a different opinion from the engineer you read.

[E-Stat]

IN Absolute Sound a few years back they interviewed a famous audio engineer, a guy
who has done several famous titles, and the interviewer asked him flat out which was best,
CD or vinly, and he said that CD was better , and stated a long list of reasons why.
Which went in and out of the heads of just about all vinyl fans, or course.

Interesting. I'll look back and see if I can find the article to which you reference. Have you read the latest issue with Doug Sax of Sheffield Labs where he says:?

"It's pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP-an artifact from 1960s."

Obviously, this "mastering engineer extraordinaire" has a different take.

9/27 Follow up:

I spent the time looking back at the last five years of TAS and find quite a few interviews with guys like Bob Ludwig, Keith Johnson, Bob Woods and stories about recordings made or remastered by Abbey Road, Telarc, Water Lily and Mobile Sound Fidelity - but nothing that supports your assertion. Abbey Road remasters in 24/192. Telarc uses SACD. Ludwig sends 24/96 masters to Stan Ricker. Keith Johnson said:

"For 25 years we've learned not to expect from the CD what we hear in LP and analog tape"

rw

[E-Stat]

so scientific FACT is now considered "dogma"?
WHAT GALL!!! And "intellectual" honesty"? BECAUSE I won't take part in some lame
biased "test" whose only purpose is to support the delusional attitudes of those who devised it, some of who probably work for the marketing depts of some tube makers?

If you had actually followed the link, you would quickly see there is no reference to output devices or which ones are better. Your groundless rants only demonstrate speculation and ignorance. It is simply a test to determine the audibility of harmonic distortion. If anything, the context is intended to illustrate common speaker distortion although such manifests itself the same with electronics. The only facts are that which you can demonstrate. Which in your case will always be zilch.

rw

[Hyfi]

I get your basic point and agree, but I need to make one clarification:

A large number of Emotiva owners also have/had Rotel amps and find the Emotiva to be equal or slightly better than Rotel/other midfi gear... So the Emotiva/B&W combo Pix has probably sounds quite good (for the price)...

However, I agree that it would be great for him to actually try some tubes/more expensive SS instead of just tossing around theory grenades...

The only thing forgotten, since I posted it plenty of times, is the fact that I paid the same money for both a fully working VAC pre and a slightly non working Counterpoint amp, a pair of speakers made by Von Schweikert and Synergistic Cables as a new Emotiva amp sells for. So tubed gear does not have to be expensive to try.

I hooked up the Rotel 1050 last night to my Clearfields and used a $100 dvd player to play some CDs. Impressive? Yes....better sounding than the Hafler, Stratos, or Counterpoint....I don't think so. But for the $100 I paid for it, it's a very nice unit.

And notice that he did not address the fact that he has NO IDEA how good his B&Ws could actually sound if hooked up to a real amp, SS or other.

And in case people get the wrong impression from all the specs. You cannot hear specs. You can only hear the music the units put out and many many people prefer the SOUND of a LESSER Spec'd unit over a better spec'd unit.

The sound is what we are after, not the best spec although it does help to have decent specs to start with.

Bye Bye, See you later.......I'm off to listen to my crappy gear.

[GMichael]

With all of the training I received as a Police, the hip is the last place I WILL SHOOT FROM, and I always hit my target.

Don't give me that. You spout off all the time about things you only know half of the facts on. Shooting from the hip is your montra. I still remember you telling us that Emotiva was crap. You didn't have all the facts, but somehow you knew you were right. I think you missed that target and took out a few civilians along the way.
It's all ok though. It makes for an interesting read most days.

[pixelthis]

Interesting. I'll look back and see if I can find the article to which you reference. Have you read the latest issue with Doug Sax of Sheffield Labs where he says:?

"It's pathetic that the best thing you can buy in 2010 is an LP-an artifact from 1960s."

Obviously, this "mastering engineer extraordinaire" has a different take.

rw

I wish I COULD TELL YOU MORE ABOUT the article. I can't afford anything in the mag,
its just stereo porn. I remember the article, almost nothing in it, and I DON'T SAVE
mags very long anymore.

[pixelthis]

Don't give me that. You spout off all the time about things you only know half of the facts on. Shooting from the hip is your montra. I still remember you telling us that Emotiva was crap. You didn't have all the facts, but somehow you knew you were right. I think you missed that target and took out a few civilians along the way.
It's all ok though. It makes for an interesting read most days.

I HAVE said my apologies about being wrong on Emotiva. Give me a break, such cheap gear
that actually is halfway decent? Who coulda known? And the verdict is still out on lifespan.

[E-Stat]

I wish I COULD TELL YOU MORE ABOUT the article...I remember the article, almost nothing in it

I'd leave out the "almost". Read my follow up as I gave you the benefit of the doubt and looked for myself. As for TAS, I have virtually every issue save one or two that were lost during my college days in the late 70s.

rw

[pixelthis]

The only thing forgotten, since I posted it plenty of times, is the fact that I paid the same money for both a fully working VAC pre and a slightly non working Counterpoint amp, a pair of speakers made by Von Schweikert and Synergistic Cables as a new Emotiva amp sells for. So tubed gear does not have to be expensive to try.

Its expensive from the viewpoint that its inaccurate, and listening to it is time you don't get back.

I hooked up the Rotel 1050 last night to my Clearfields and used a $100 dvd player to play some CDs. Impressive? Yes....better sounding than the Hafler, Stratos, or Counterpoint....I don't think so. But for the $100 I paid for it, it's a very nice unit.

And you never ask why it is that even cheap SS gear sounds decent .

And notice that he did not address the fact that he has NO IDEA how good his B&Ws could actually sound if hooked up to a real amp, SS or other.

HOW ARROGANT CAN YOU GET? Just because my B&W'S HAVE NEVER BEEN HOOKED UP TO TUBE JUNK, I don't know "how they sound" in your exalted
opinion?
I HAVE HEARD THEM HOOKED up to Adcom, Yamaha, Emotiva, a 1200$ Integra
with a .05 distortion rating, A denon receiver, and a CARVER .
I think I HAVE A PRETTY DECENT IDEA OF HOW THEY CAN SOUND,
oh pompous one.

And in case people get the wrong impression from all the specs. You cannot hear specs. You can only hear the music the units put out and many many people prefer the SOUND of a LESSER Spec'd unit over a better spec'd unit.

This is total nonsense. The music you hear a unit "putting out" is determined by how the unit performs, and the ONLY way to know that is to test it and get the specs on it.
OF COURSE tube junk never beats solid state, never will, so what you imagine you hear
is more important than how the equipment actually performs.
In other words your horse running the DAYTONA got beat by all of the cars, but actualy
beat them because you like your horse better, and what you "like" is more important.
And the bet is that during a double blind test you would pick solid state, which happens
quite a bit, which is why subjective types such as yourself hate such tests.

The sound is what we are after, not the best spec although it does help to have decent specs to start with.

Which is never going to happen with tube gear.
Bye Bye, See you later.......I'm off to listen to my crappy gear.

YOU SAID IT.
And its your time to waste.

[pixelthis]

ANYWAY... the first pics posted of my "system" were before the annual straighten up
that I like to do.
Here is my system as it currently appears, to anyone who still cares. Its not finished,
tho, it never is, I will be "finished" before it is. Looks okay, imho.
An annual refurb of a system is always a good idea, things tend to drift.

[pixelthis]

And heres my latest screen cap...

[pixelthis]

And here is the result from my latest project...my B&W asw1000(or 2000, can't remember).
I had been meaning to transplant the plate amp from my VELODYNE to it.
Well, the operation was a success, the patient survived.
This is a very musical sub, which is why I bought it. Kinda ticked off tho, when I took the amp off of the Velodyne I discovered a cheap piece of plastic was behind it, serving as the housing.
To add insult to injury this piece of plastic was shaped like the horn element from a
Klipsh speaker. Kinda explains why the Velo kept breaking up at high output, probably
this thing vibrating. Anyway my B&W sounds great. Played some David Grey and
a classic 45 rpm long play from MARRS from 1987, remember them? Always been my
demo to test a sub, unreal bass. You can see the album in my latest system pic in the record collection.

[pixelthis]

AND for those who have shown an interest, my "antique" TECHNICS TURNTABLES.
Can't remember which is 1982, and which is 1988. Currently using the direct drive,
it has an antiskate control(probably the older one).
SOME things about Panasonic I don't care for, but there products can't be beat(Panasonic
used to be the Technics brand, there "audiophile" brand). Anyway, their stuff lasts
forever, and both turntables play and handle records about as good as you could expect.
So why get a new TT?

[E-Stat]

So why get a new TT?

As for me, I found better sounding in the Ariston/Linn family over thirty years ago. The 1976 Ariston continues to work perfectly today. Originally, I put an SME on an SL110. Nice and really cool looking, but...



rw